Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee, Guest Artist Photographers

[Asher Kelman]

In an ongoing bi-weekly posting of one photograph from each of them, Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee will be discussing the nature of photographic vision and the visual concerns things that go into the making of their photographs, and by extension, any fine photograph. Their writings will be a compression of what they teach in their Vision and Technique Workshops. The purpose of this section of the forum is to help everyone make better photographs—on their own terms—regardless of type of camera used, format, or subject matter.

Michael and Paula are large-format (8x10 and 8x20) fine-art photographers whose photographs between them have been collected by over 140 art museums worldwide. Their many contributions to fine-art photography include: the publication of high-end photography books, including books by Edward Weston and a nineteen-volume series of the portfolios of Brett Weston (www.lodimapress.com); the distribution of the highest quality mat board and storage materials (www.lodimaarrchivalmaterials.com); and the manufacture of Lodima, a new gelatin silver-chloride contact printing paper (www.michaelandpaula.com).

Michael and Paula welcome questions and will do their best to answer in a timely way.

Asher

[Michael A. Smith]

Here are our first two photographs. Our discussion follows.

http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/M-New Orleans, 1985.jpg

Michael A. Smith: New Orleans, 1985
"from the book, Michael A. Smith: A Visual Journey—Photographs from Twenty-Five Years, Lodima Press 1992"


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/P-Romana Mesa, Utah, 1993.jpg

Paula Chamlee: Romana Mesa, Utah, 1993
"from the book, Natural Connections, Lodima Press 1994"

As photographers we are responsible for the visual integrity of our photographs the same way a composer is responsible for every note, or a poet is responsible for every word. Every square millimeter of the picture space must be an integrated part of the entire photograph.

When you look at our photographs pay attention not only to the subject matter, but to how the entire picture is put together. Because everything in the photograph is important, be sure to pay attention to everything, including the edges and the corners. Everything in the photograph must visually relate to everything else.

In Michael's photograph, New Orleans, 1985, note the double black line at the bottom left corner, the black line at the bottom right edge and the black square in the bottom right corner, and what is going on at the top corners. These visual elements serve to move the eye throughout the picture space, keeping everything lively.

In Paula's photograph, Romana Mesa, Utah, 1993, see how the dark wavy black line near the bottom left corner, the diagonal flow at the upper right corner and the dark patch at the bottom right corner draw the eye, making it more than just a photograph of the form of the dark water. Because of the placement of these elements, as well as the placements of the other marks in the picture, it is a unified photograph.

Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee

[Asher Kelman]

Michael and Paula,

Thanks for this kick-off in this new venture. So, if I have it right, your primary concerns are form and sub-structure of the elements in the picture and how they relate visually, not any particular meaning of the photograph. So this, in a way means that to you both, the structure comes before meaning, beauty or any other value.

Asher

[Michael A. Smith]

Michael and Paula,

Thanks for this kick-off in this new venture. So, if I have it right, your primary concerns are form and sub-structure of the elements in the picture and how they relate visually, not any particular meaning of the photograph. So this, in a way means that to you both, the structure comes before meaning, beauty or any other value.

Asher

It is the structure of the photograph that creates beauty. And as John Keats wrote,"Beauty is Truth."

Michael A. Smith

[Asher Kelman]

It is the structure of the photograph that creates beauty. And as John Keats wrote,"Beauty is Truth."

Michael A. Smith

One thing I'm concerned about is that structure might supersede the artistic value as a consideration. Tolerate this assertion for a moment.

IOW, the art of a piece of furniture, is more than just the skilled workmanship and competent design. So a perfectly designed photograph, all the way to the edges, one that has balance and visual impact, might then be a beautiful photograph for sure. But would it then, of necessity be art? After all, a "magical and romantic sunset" is not always art, even if technically perfect in the photograph!

Asher

[Jerome Marot]

As photographers we are responsible for the visual integrity of our photographs the same way a composer is responsible for every note, or a poet is responsible for every word. Every square millimeter of the picture space must be an integrated part of the entire photograph.

That is certainly true.

In Michael's photograph, New Orleans, 1985, note the double black line at the bottom left corner, the black line at the bottom right edge and the black square in the bottom right corner, and what is going on at the top corners. These visual elements serve to move the eye throughout the picture space, keeping everything lively.

The first time I saw this picture, I immediately imagined that the air ducts would be some kind of alien monster engulfing the building. Their structure is similar to the one of the root of plants, when they strangle or hold onto something.

Then, I remember the exhibition of Ernst and Hilla Becher less known works I saw a few month ago, where they pictured similar industrial buildings. The obvious difference is that they pictured the building as a whole, in documentary fashion, while you zoomed in.

I also agree that what is going on at the edges of the frame is important to that picture: I could not crop anything out without destroying the balance of the image. But I keep asking to myself whether it would be possible to expand the image a little bit: my eye keep hitting the bottom of the left air ducts and wants to see a bit more of it: how it ends and how it is connected to the building.

[Michael A. Smith]

One thing I'm concerned about is that structure might supersede the artistic value as a consideration. Tolerate this assertion for a moment.

IOW, the art of a piece of furniture, is more than just the skilled workmanship and competent design. So a perfectly designed photograph, all the way to the edges, one that has balance and visual impact, might then be a beautiful photograph for sure. But would it then, of necessity be art? After all, a "magical and romantic sunset" is not always art, even if technically perfect in the photograph!

Asher

It is the structure of any photograph that makes it art, not the subject. This, of course, is a Modernist point of view. What one is trying to say, what message someone is trying to convey must first be grounded in a complete and integrated structure. When Paula and I teach, and this section of the Forum is essentially a compression of our workshops—an effort to help folks make better photographs—we do not concern ourselves with the content of the photograph. We assume that everyone has feelings or ideas they are trying to express and that everyone has an interest in subject matter that probably is very different from our own choice of subject matter. There is no right or wrong about subject matter. Where folks need help to make better photographs in their own terms is not in their choice of subject matter, but in their understanding of and ability to make photographs that are visually coherent.

To put this another way:

Definition of capital "A" Art: Art is expression contained within a form. Whether it is good art or bad art is therefore a function of two things—whether the structure of the photograph is visually complete and coherent—the form, and whether something of interest has been said—the expression. Paula and I do not presume that we feel things more deeply than others, therefore in our teaching we do not deal with the part of the photograph that is about the expression.

If a magical and romantic sunset were well seen, it, of course, could be art, but it also could not be art, or at least not very good art. This is because photographs of a magical and romantic sunset are usually clichés. There is rarely anything personal about those types of photographs. Calendar art is art that has nothing personal about it. The photographs are generic. They are usually boring because the expression is superficial, no matter how deep the feeling the photographer had when making the photograph. It is one thing to have a feeling; it is quite another to express it in a way that communicates that feeling in a way that connects with others.

Actually, any photograph can be art if it is seen in an art context. Whether it is good art or bad art is the real issue. And, of course, different people will have different opinions about whether the work is good or bad. Consensus over time is the final arbiter.

Michael A. Smith

[Asher Kelman]

The first time I saw this picture, I immediately imagined that the air ducts would be some kind of alien monster engulfing the building. Their structure is similar to the one of the root of plants, when they strangle or hold onto something.


Jerome,

That's a wonderful image you made for us. I can't now separate those invasive tentacles from the photograph now! That monster wont let go!

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

It is the structure of any photograph that makes it art, not the subject. This, of course, is a Modernist point of view. What one is trying to say, what message someone is trying to convey must first be grounded in a complete and integrated structure. When Paula and I teach, and this section of the Forum is essentially a compression of our workshops—an effort to help folks make better photographs—we do not concern ourselves with the content of the photograph. We assume that everyone has feelings or ideas they are trying to express and that everyone has an interest in subject matter that probably is very different from our own choice of subject matter. There is no right or wrong about subject matter. Where folks need help to make better photographs in their own terms is not in their choice of subject matter, but in their understanding of and ability to make photographs that are visually coherent.

To put this another way:

Definition of capital "A" Art: Art is expression contained within a form. Whether it is good art or bad art is therefore a function of two things—whether the structure of the photograph is visually complete and coherent—the form, and whether something of interest has been said—the expression. Paula and I do not presume that we feel things more deeply than others, therefore in our teaching we do not deal with the part of the photograph that is about the expression.

If a magical and romantic sunset were well seen, it, of course, could be art, but it also could not be art, or at least not very good art. This is because photographs of a magical and romantic sunset are usually clichés. There is rarely anything personal about those types of photographs. Calendar art is art that has nothing personal about it. The photographs are generic. They are usually boring because the expression is superficial, no matter how deep the feeling the photographer had when making the photograph. It is one thing to have a feeling; it is quite another to express it in a way that communicates that feeling in a way that connects with others.

Actually, any photograph can be art if it is seen in an art context. Whether it is good art or bad art is the real issue. And, of course, different people will have different opinions about whether the work is good or bad. Consensus over time is the final arbiter.

Michael A. Smith

Michael,

hi - do you have any instances of visually incoherent work ?

is there a way that you can measure the coherence of an image in an objective (or near objective) way?

I enjoyed looking through your work - seeing it in real life would be richer experience - do you plan to get better scans of work done so the online representation give more than general impression of your tonal ranges etc.

thanks for taking the time to put up some work.

cheers

[Michael A. Smith]

Michael,

hi - do you have any instances of visually incoherent work ?

is there a way that you can measure the coherence of an image in an objective (or near objective) way?

I enjoyed looking through your work - seeing it in real life would be richer experience - do you plan to get better scans of work done so the online representation give more than general impression of your tonal ranges etc.

thanks for taking the time to put up some work.

cheers

No, we do not have examples of visually incoherent work ourselves, but there are hundreds of thousands of examples of such work on the internet. When we teach workshops, at least some of the participants work is visually incoherent. After what we have explained, shown, and demonstrated, everyone sees the difference.

There is no measurement to determine if a work is visually incoherent. And there are no rules about it as our next submission here will demonstrate.

I am not sure what you mean by "better scans." The scans we have, while perhaps not adequate for print reproduction, look pretty good on the web to us.

Michael A. Smith

[fahim mohammed]

Hi Michael and Paula.

First a big thank you from all of us at OPF for giving us of your time, experience and knowledge.

I have two questions for the both of you, if I may.

1. What made you take the photo of this place in the first instance? Had you already been working on
a series of such subject matter? Did you already have the subject ( or a vague notion of it ) in your
thoughts? Why here? Why that elevation for the second photograph and not less or more?

2. This questions pertains to the developing and printing process:
What criteria did you both use to say OK this is it. I am satisfied with the print? Why not more/less contrast or more/less ( developing time e.g. ). Are there certain standards that you apply subconsciously
for the end product? Based on your experience, intuition, requirement of the subject?

Once again, my thanks for being gracious to give us of your knowledge.

Best regards.

[Michael A. Smith]

Hi Michael and Paula.

First a big thank you from all of us at OPF for giving us of your time, experience and knowledge.

I have two questions for the both of you, if I may.

1. What made you take the photo of this place in the first instance? Had you already been working on
a series of such subject matter? Did you already have the subject ( or a vague notion of it ) in your
thoughts? Why here? Why that elevation for the second photograph and not less or more?

2. This questions pertains to the developing and printing process:
What criteria did you both use to say OK this is it. I am satisfied with the print? Why not more/less contrast or more/less ( developing time e.g. ). Are there certain standards that you apply subconsciously
for the end product? Based on your experience, intuition, requirement of the subject?

Once again, my thanks for being gracious to give us of your knowledge.

Best regards.

I will try to answer your questions, Fahim.

It is how one sees, not what one sees that makes any photograph interesting. Everything we do photographically, from making exposures to making prints, we do intuitively.

The first (Michael's) photograph was made as part of a commissioned project to photograph the city of New Orleans. I was free to photograph anything I wanted. I did not have to photograph famous buildings as they already had photographs of those structures. My goal was to "get a sense o the city." Of course, it would be my sense of the city. I photographed whatever caught my eye. This included photographs in all parts of the city and included photographs of buildings, views, portraits, Jazz Fest, Mardi Gras, and more. All together I finished and printed 405 negatives from New Orleans in the following formats: 8x10, 8x20, and 18x22. Why did I make this particular photograph? It looked good on the ground glass.

Paula's photograph: This photograph was made from a mesa in Utah. Why from that vantage point? Because that is where we were. Why that photograph? Again, because it looked good on the ground glass.

Why are the prints printed the way they are? Because they look best to us. No other reason. We always make a darker print and a lighter print to be sure that, in our eyes, the final print is the best print.

We have a visual approach to photography. When we make a photograph, "ideas" and "meaning" and symbolism" and other such things are not in our minds in any way. Of course, fine photographs are informed by intelligence, and the photographs we make came out of our world view and our understanding of how the universe works. As you will see in the series of photographs that we will put up here over time, we photograph a great variety of subject matter--people, architecture, urban, rural, and natural landscapes. In a way, it does not matter to us what the subject is. However, we would not even set up our cumbersome cameras unless we had an emotional response to what was before us.

I was once asked by a museum: "What are you trying to do when you make a photograph?" After throwing away a couple of paragraphs, I came up with one sentence, " I'm just trying to make the best picture I can." By extension, in the darkroom, I am just trying to make the best print I can.

Some photographers say that they make prints to try to capture the feeling they had when making the exposure in the field and they want others to feel the same, or similar feelings. This, to me, is ridiculous.

My response to this attitude is in my article "On Printing": "Although it is the reality of the subject before you that captures your attention, the feeling one has while photographing is determined by myriad factors. The physical reality before you—the very real three-dimensional space, the light, the colors, the sounds, the smells, the weather—is of course a major factor. Of the others, some are more or less stable, such as one’s world view and the general state of one’s psyche and health. Other factors are more fleeting, such as the time you have available (it is hard to be calm and contemplative when rushed, whether by quickly changing light or the need to be somewhere else), the other people who may be present, your dreams from the night before, or a conversation you may have just had. All of these factors contribute to determining your mood, which in turn may affect how you feel about what is before you.

"Realizing the absolute impossibility of trying to create for others and to recreate for myself, in a two-dimensional black and white photograph, the feeling of the multi-faceted experience of having been at the scene photographed, my goal when making prints is simply to try to make the best print I can, and thereby to provide, both for myself and for the viewer, a new experience—one of the photograph itself."

There is, of course, much more I could write, but this will have to do for now.

Final word: keep in mind that Paula and I have a visual approach to photography. How things look is much more important than what they are.

Michael A. Smith

[Jerome Marot]

It is how one sees, not what one sees that makes any photograph interesting. Everything we do photographically, from making exposures to making prints, we do intuitively.

"I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed." - Garry Winogrand

[Antonio Correia]

... It is how one sees, not what one sees that makes any photograph interesting. Everything we do photographically, from making exposures to making prints, we do intuitively.

The first (Michael's) photograph was made as part of a commissioned project to photograph the city of New Orleans. I was free to photograph anything I wanted. I did not have to photograph famous buildings as they already had photographs of those structures. My goal was to "get a sense o the city." Of course, it would be my sense of the city. I photographed whatever caught my eye. This included photographs in all parts of the city and included photographs of buildings, views, portraits, Jazz Fest, Mardi Gras, and more. All together I finished and printed 405 negatives from New Orleans in the following formats: 8x10, 8x20, and 18x22. Why did I make this particular photograph? It looked good on the ground glass.

Paula's photograph: This photograph was made from a mesa in Utah. Why from that vantage point? Because that is where we were. Why that photograph? Again, because it looked good on the ground glass.

Why are the prints printed the way they are? Because they look best to us. No other reason. We always make a darker print and a lighter print to be sure that, in our eyes, the final print is the best print.

We have a visual approach to photography. When we make a photograph, "ideas" and "meaning" and symbolism" and other such things are not in our minds in any way. Of course, fine photographs are informed by intelligence, and the photographs we make came out of our world view and our understanding of how the universe works. As you will see in the series of photographs that we will put up here over time, we photograph a great variety of subject matter--people, architecture, urban, rural, and natural landscapes. In a way, it does not matter to us what the subject is. However, we would not even set up our cumbersome cameras unless we had an emotional response to what was before us.

I was once asked by a museum: "What are you trying to do when you make a photograph?" After throwing away a couple of paragraphs, I came up with one sentence, " I'm just trying to make the best picture I can." By extension, in the darkroom, I am just trying to make the best print I can.

Some photographers say that they make prints to try to capture the feeling they had when making the exposure in the field and they want others to feel the same, or similar feelings. This, to me, is ridiculous.

My response to this attitude is in my article "On Printing": "Although it is the reality of the subject before you that captures your attention, the feeling one has while photographing is determined by myriad factors. The physical reality before you—the very real three-dimensional space, the light, the colors, the sounds, the smells, the weather—is of course a major factor. Of the others, some are more or less stable, such as one’s world view and the general state of one’s psyche and health. Other factors are more fleeting, such as the time you have available (it is hard to be calm and contemplative when rushed, whether by quickly changing light or the need to be somewhere else), the other people who may be present, your dreams from the night before, or a conversation you may have just had. All of these factors contribute to determining your mood, which in turn may affect how you feel about what is before you.

"Realizing the absolute impossibility of trying to create for others and to recreate for myself, in a two-dimensional black and white photograph, the feeling of the multi-faceted experience of having been at the scene photographed, my goal when making prints is simply to try to make the best print I can, and thereby to provide, both for myself and for the viewer, a new experience—one of the photograph itself."

There is, of course, much more I could write, but this will have to do for now.

Final word: keep in mind that Paula and I have a visual approach to photography. How things look is much more important than what they are. Michael A. Smith

I quite agree with all this. It is a bit selfish perhaps but it is true and, curiously or not, I feel the same.
OK, OK I am nothing in the Photographic World I know, but it's my - shall I say - statement/view ?

I would like to add that one's cultural aspect is of great importance. Your background, where you come from, your education are important and - a final word - your connections within the society you belong to. This is of major importance. Oh yes it is :)

Sometimes I put things - witch ever they are - in extremes and this makes me understand better the middle, trying to establish the right line for the right subject.

Thank you for writing these lines Michael. :)

[fahim mohammed]

Michael ( and Paula ) thank you for the lucid response. I shall take my time assimilating all the information asked and given.

That you guys are excellent teachers too, is apparent from the no-nonsense and approachable ( by me )
answers.

I shall eagerly look forward for more.

Once again my profound thanks to the both of you.

[Michael Nagel]

Paula and Michael,

thanks for showing and discussing your work here.

My personal interest is currently more directed to urban/industrial photography, so 'New Orleans 1985' is the one that I was immediately interested in.

Jerome provided a good impression on how seeing this photo, I can follow his view.
My first impressions was: 'When you draw the back of a head in the 'V' formed by the ducts on the left side, you have a person reaching into the building.'
This is probably because I document a lot of street art and this influences my way of seeing.

I am curious on what will follow.

Best regards,
Michael

[Tom Robbins]

Paula and Michael,

thanks for showing and discussing your work here.

My personal interest is currently more directed to urban/industrial photography, so 'New Orleans 1985' is the one that I was immediately interested in.

Jerome provided a good impression on how seeing this photo, I can follow his view.
My first impressions was: 'When you draw the back of a head in the 'V' formed by the ducts on the left side, you have a person reaching into the building.'
This is probably because I document a lot of street art and this influences my way of seeing.

I am curious on what will follow.

Best regards,
Michael

I too am very interested in the next images and also appreciate what has already been shared. Structure in a photograph is a new concept for me and I'm struggling to understand.

[Jean Henderson]

Like Tom, structure in a photograph is a new concept for me and I am struggling to undersatnd. Is it another intuitive thing or a more conscious one?

Many thanks for being among us.
Jean

[Michael A. Smith]

Like Tom, structure in a photograph is a new concept for me and I am struggling to undersatnd. Is it another intuitive thing or a more conscious one?

Many thanks for being among us.
Jean

Understanding structure in a photograph is something that can be learned. It is essentially what we teach in our workshops. Once folks "get it" they always name better photographs--in their own terms--regardless of subject matter or type pf camera used.

Michael A. Smith

[Michael A. Smith]

What is the subject in Michael’s photograph, "Yosemite, 1988"?


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Yosemite1988-1.jpg


Michael A. Smith: Yosemite, 1988
From the book, Michael A. Smith: A Visual Journey—Photographs from Twenty-Five Years, Lodima Press 1999



It is not any one thing, but the relationship of everything to everything else. "Everything" here means the relationship of all of the tones to each other. Note how the relationship of the tones to each other cause the eye to move throughout the picture space. The movement of the eyes is inherently pleasurable. And one of the things we all do when we make a good photograph is to give visual pleasure.
There are no rules.



http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/hamleeCatavina2003.jpg

Paula Chamlee: Cataviñia, Baja, California, 2003




There are an infinite number of ways to construct a photograph. Paula's photograph, Cataviña, Baja California, 2003, is of something centered. The spaces on either side of the Cordon cactus are exactly right. The relationship of the vertical lines in the cactus and the edges of the cactus to the edges of the photograph establish the rhythmic intervals that give visual pleasure.

Again, we're really looking forward to your discussion and further questions. :)

Michael and Paula

[Jerome Marot]

Yosemite, 1988 is indeed an interesting composition. I would describe it as centered, although it is not obvious at first sight: the composition as arranged as an oval constructed from the shoreline on top and the reflection of the trees tops and stone at the bottom. It is closed at the sides by the stones. But this basic structure would not work without the white stones at the middle, which distracts the eye. Without these stones, the eye would simply explore the periphery of the picture in circles and quickly get tired, with it indeed the eye wanders around randomly. Once the oval is seen, one understand why the tree tops are cut so as to put the shoreline near the top, in symmetry with the reflection of the trees tops.

An interesting exercise for someone learning pictorial composition would be to randomly clone things out in photoshop to get a better feeling of what is essential and what is not.

Cataviñia, Baja, California, 2003 is deceptively simple. I think the plant was chosen because its outer shape reminds the one of a woman seen from the back. The slight bulge on the bottom would be the line of the buttocks, the waist is visible above it and the picture is cut just below the shoulders. The model would need to take the classical pose in which her arms are raised above her head or maybe keep her arms to the front of her body.

[Michael Nagel]

For me 'Yosemite, 1988' is loosely linked to M. C. Eschers Three Worlds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds). The relationship between different aspects of the image is important here as well.

Best regards,
Michael

[Michael A. Smith]

Cataviñia, Baja, California, 2003 is deceptively simple. I think the plant was chosen because its outer shape reminds the one of a woman seen from the back. The slight bulge on the bottom would be the line of the buttocks, the waist is visible above it and the picture is cut just below the shoulders. The model would need to take the classical pose in which her arms are raised above her head or maybe keep her arms to the front of her body.

Paula did not choose to photograph this cactus because the outer shape reminded her of a woman. She selected it for e reason only: It looked good. That the photograph reminds you of a woman seen from behind is not a bad thing. All viewers bring their own life experiences to a work of art. They may see more in a work than the artist saw, and may feel more than the artist felt when making the picture.

Truly, both Paula and I work intuitively, with never a thought of what a photograph may mean. Our work is also never about ideas. Iti is however, informed by intelligence--visual intelligence.

Michael A. Smith

[Tom Robbins]

Michael,

The photos you've posted by you and Paula, as well as your comments to questions, have been incredibly thought provoking. As you have pointed out, this forum discussion is a compression of a workshop, and the more efficient give and take of the workshop is not possible. Just the same, your words are carefully chosen, and your ideas are clearly presented. It is up to the reader to connect the dots.

So, I think I am beginning to understand, but would like to summarize what I understand to see if I'm following correctly. Please correct me.

The value of the subject in any photograph is purely subjective.

Visual structure makes "art", and this requires a visual approach that includes:

visual integrity—all elements in the frame relate to each other
visual coherence—logical connection of elements in the frame
visual intelligence—lost here: possibly an informed combination of the previous two
visual completeness—lost again: perhaps this involves including relevant elements within the frame

If everything falls into place, all elements in the resulting photograph will be related in a logically harmonious manner.

[Michael A. Smith]

Michael,

The photos you've posted by you and Paula, as well as your comments to questions, have been incredibly thought provoking. As you have pointed out, this forum discussion is a compression of a workshop, and the more efficient give and take of the workshop is not possible. Just the same, your words are carefully chosen, and your ideas are clearly presented. It is up to the reader to connect the dots.

So, I think I am beginning to understand, but would like to summarize what I understand to see if I'm following correctly. Please correct me.

The value of the subject in any photograph is purely subjective.

Visual structure makes "art", and this requires a visual approach that includes:

visual integrity—all elements in the frame relate to each other
visual coherence—logical connection of elements in the frame
visual intelligence—lost here: possibly an informed combination of the previous two
visual completeness—lost again: perhaps this involves including relevant elements within the frame

If everything falls into place, all elements in the resulting photograph will be related in a logically harmonious manner.

Tom,

Those four "visual" words all really refer to the same thing. Seems as if you got it. Now the questions becomes, "How does one achieve that?"

Answer: First by really understanding it visually--and being able to see it in photographs where it exists and being able to see the lack of it in photographs where it does not exist. Once you "get it" it is virtually impossible to make a bad picture again. You might, and we sometimes do, make boring pictures, but never ones that are bad ones--ones that are visually incoherent.

In all of this we are talking about photographs as art. There are photographs that depict certain events and in those photographs the specific information is more important than the structure of the picture. But if a visually coherent structure is there, the photograph will be more than only a document.

I'm impressed. You seem to have "gotten it" quickly.

Of course the subjects one chooses to photograph reflect the interests of the photographer and are not at all unimportant. In all that Paula and I teach, however, we assume that we do not need to discuss that aspect of the picture. It is never that the photographer chooses a "wrong" subject. Where photographers weaknesses are is in the structure of the picture--how the subject is seen.

Michael A. Smith

[Mark Hampton]

Tom,

Those four "visual" words all really refer to the same thing. Seems as if you got it. Now the questions becomes, "How does one achieve that?"

Answer: First by really understanding it visually--and being able to see it in photographs where it exists and being able to see the lack of it in photographs where it does not exist. Once you "get it" it is virtually impossible to make a bad picture again. You might, and we sometimes do, make boring pictures, but never ones that are bad ones--ones that are visually incoherent.

In all of this we are talking about photographs as art. There are photographs that depict certain events and in those photographs the specific information is more important than the structure of the picture. But if a visually coherent structure is there, the photograph will be more than only a document.

I'm impressed. You seem to have "gotten it" quickly.

Of course the subjects one chooses to photograph reflect the interests of the photographer and are not at all unimportant. In all that Paula and I teach, however, we assume that we do not need to discuss that aspect of the picture. It is never that the photographer chooses a "wrong" subject. Where photographers weaknesses are is in the structure of the picture--how the subject is seen.

Michael A. Smith

Michael,

please can you show examples of visually incoherent photographs (you said there are examples on google can you link to one) I think we really need to define this to move forward in the thread.

You have not really defined incoherent / coherent for me (then again i am some what stupideo !) other than pointing to your own work as coherent, is it and how is it other than to you?

you as Asher said are guests and are raising some interesting ideas - thanks for the time you have spent.

I hope the above is coherent as ungerlish is my second language.. i am scottish.

cheers

[Antonio Correia]

I agree with you Mark. :)

I am also not very clever...

[Jim Shanesy]

Michael,

please can you show examples of visually incoherent photographs (you said there are examples on google can you link to one) I think we really need to define this to move forward in the thread.



I've always thought that this one (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3 Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dmoonrise%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%26typ e%3D937811&w=160&h=125&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmoonri se%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%23focal%3D3e3303b9e a2742c544acf16b031ca14e%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%25 2fwww.afterimagegallery.com%252fadamsmoonriselarge 618.jpg&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch% 3Fq%3Dmoonrise%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%23focal %3D3e3303b9ea2742c544acf16b031ca14e%26furl%3Dhttp% 253a%252f%252fwww.afterimagegallery.com%252fadamsm oonriselarge618.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dmoonrise%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%23focal% 3D3e3303b9ea2742c544acf16b031ca14e%26furl%3Dhttp%2 53a%252f%252fwww.afterimagegallery.com%252fadamsmo onriselarge618.jpg&p=moonrise+hernandez+ansel+adams&type=&no=1&tt=115&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbn ail.aspx%3Fq%3D4747923657852576%26id%3D6846439aa3a 30f0ac161e5fe72ff3931&tit=Ansel+Adams%2C+Moonrise%2C+Hernandez%2C+New+Me xico&sigr=15hj13v3o&sigi=15ak1bg4h&sigb=12k4aiu3b&fr=chr-greentree_gc) lacks visual coherence. To me it is not art, but hastily done illustration.

[Antonio Correia]

@ Jim - Indeed.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4747923657852576&id=a8b4c0d6fb582640ec2bb9afb3332601

But isn't this (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3 Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dmoonrise%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%26typ e%3D937811&w=160&h=125&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmoonri se%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%23focal%3D3e3303b9e a2742c544acf16b031ca14e%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%25 2fwww.afterimagegallery.com%252fadamsmoonriselarge 618.jpg&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch% 3Fq%3Dmoonrise%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%23focal %3D3e3303b9ea2742c544acf16b031ca14e%26furl%3Dhttp% 253a%252f%252fwww.afterimagegallery.com%252fadamsm oonriselarge618.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dmoonrise%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%23focal% 3D3e3303b9ea2742c544acf16b031ca14e%26furl%3Dhttp%2 53a%252f%252fwww.afterimagegallery.com%252fadamsmo onriselarge618.jpg&p=moonrise+hernandez+ansel+adams&type=&no=1&tt=115&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbn ail.aspx%3Fq%3D4747923657852576%26id%3D6846439aa3a 30f0ac161e5fe72ff3931&tit=Ansel+Adams%2C+Moonrise%2C+Hernandez%2C+New+Me xico&sigr=15hj13v3o&sigi=15ak1bg4h&sigb=12k4aiu3b&fr=chr-greentree_gc) - the photograph you linked shown above - more than anything else, an example of badly composed photograph which ends being unpleasant to look at ?

Is it a photograph by Ansel Adams ??!!! :(

Is this (http://www.globalgallery.com/enlarge/27583/)below an example of structurized image ? Or is it a well composed image ?

Where does structure ends and starts composition or vice versa or do they live together in straight dynamic relationship ?

http://www.globalgallery.com/prod_images/600/bm-a91.jpg

[Jim Shanesy]

Another test which I often apply when viewing photographs and always when composing my own is to remove an element in my mind's eye. Does that improve or detract from the image? In the case of Clearing Winter Storm, imagine the picture without the two trees in the right foreground. In my opinion doing that would greatly improve the image. Visually incoherent.

Try removing any element in this one (http://ccp.uair.arizona.edu/item/9967). The leaf in the upper left corner, for example. To do that would ruin the image. It's very visually coherent.

[Asher Kelman]

"Is this (http://www.globalgallery.com/enlarge/27583/)below an example of structurized image ? Or is it a well composed image ?

Where does structure ends and starts composition or vice versa or do they live together in straight dynamic relationship ?"

http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/Ansel_Adams/Yosemite Valley, Clearing Winterstorm (1942).jpg


Another test which I often apply when viewing photographs and always when composing my own is to remove an element in my mind's eye. Does that improve or detract from the image? In the case of Clearing Winter Storm, imagine the picture without the two trees in the right foreground. In my opinion doing that would greatly improve the image. Visually incoherent.



Jim,

Consider the picture from an alternative point of view, a stage. The massive trees in the foreground provides a base from which the scene is viewed. Removing it might please you, but the entire view then loses some of its drama, from the obvious reference "jump-off mass" that Adams purposely included. He chose something definitive and didn't want the eye to just meander into the image but rather have a sudden transition. This, I believe is a dynamic feature, much like someone introducing and cheering a ballerina as she comes on the stage.

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

I've always thought that this one (http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3 Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dmoonrise%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%26typ e%3D937811&w=160&h=125&imgurl=www.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmoonri se%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%23focal%3D3e3303b9e a2742c544acf16b031ca14e%26furl%3Dhttp%253a%252f%25 2fwww.afterimagegallery.com%252fadamsmoonriselarge 618.jpg&size=&name=search&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch% 3Fq%3Dmoonrise%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%23focal %3D3e3303b9ea2742c544acf16b031ca14e%26furl%3Dhttp% 253a%252f%252fwww.afterimagegallery.com%252fadamsm oonriselarge618.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dmoonrise%2Bhernandez%2Bansel%2Badams%23focal% 3D3e3303b9ea2742c544acf16b031ca14e%26furl%3Dhttp%2 53a%252f%252fwww.afterimagegallery.com%252fadamsmo onriselarge618.jpg&p=moonrise+hernandez+ansel+adams&type=&no=1&tt=115&oid=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fimages%2Fthumbn ail.aspx%3Fq%3D4747923657852576%26id%3D6846439aa3a 30f0ac161e5fe72ff3931&tit=Ansel+Adams%2C+Moonrise%2C+Hernandez%2C+New+Me xico&sigr=15hj13v3o&sigi=15ak1bg4h&sigb=12k4aiu3b&fr=chr-greentree_gc) lacks visual coherence. To me it is not art, but hastily done illustration.

Jim, that was a bad link (mushy compressed image / although for me some of the over compressed version were beautiful but that's irony or too much whisky) - here is a better representation of the work -

It was interesting to look at the different compressions used on this image and how they change it but leave the bones of the image in place - is that worth pointing out?




http://willardclayphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/MOONRISE3.jpg

AA - MOH - from WC site




as photography deals with measuring reflected light surely we can come up with a way that measures coherence that is outside of the subjective view - if it is truly worth defining ?

as for moonrise not the type of image that I find interesting to look at but then most of that type of work (american LF photography) leaves me cold - but whatever floats people boats..

anyway - welcome !

cheers

[Asher Kelman]

Jim, that was a bad link (mushy compressed image / although for me some of the over compressed version were beautiful but that's irony or too much whisky) - here is a better representation of the work -

It was interesting to look at the different compressions used on this image and how they change it but leave the bones of the image in place - is that worth pointing out?




http://willardclayphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/MOONRISE3.jpg

AA - MOH - from WC site




Had Adams wished to produce a clean well made landscape, the lower I/3 was not needed. Ask why he added a;ll that untidiness of human habitation? To me he's using these elements to show some contrast or comparison. He might even have been making some comment of social value. but, for sure, this composition had a purpose beyond composition and structure. The content is important too. what it means I so not know. Perhaps someone has read of his thoughts on this famous picture.

Asher

[Jim Shanesy]

Had Adams wished to produce a clean well made landscape, the lower I/3 was not needed. Ask why he added a;ll that untidiness of human habitation? To me he's using these elements to show some contrast or comparison. He might even have been making some comment of social value. but, for sure, this composition had a purpose beyond composition and structure. The content is important too. what it means I so not know. Perhaps someone has read of his thoughts on this famous picture.

Asher


Hsd

Reading his account of how he made that image in The Making of 40 Photographs brings you to the realization that he didn't compose it at all. There wasn't time for that. He couldn't find his meter and had to compute the correct exposure using the luminance of the moon which he knew to be 250 c/sq. ft. and adjusting for the aperture he used and filter factor. As soon as he put the slide back into the holder the clouds were gone.

It's also interesting to note the various interpretations of this image that he made over the years. At the AIPAD show last week I saw a Moonrise with a very light sky made (apparently) before he augmented the foreground by dipping the negative in selenium toner. The sky around the moon in that print was neutral gray. It wasn't black until the very top. I have to wonder about the artistic intentions of someone who can't decide how he wants an image to look from print to print or from year to year.

Perhaps I should have selected another image to demonstrate what I feel is visual incoherence. I've certainly made plenty of them, but I don't have any of them scanned. Moonrise and Clearing Winter Storm as such sacred cows that objective discussions of them become almost impossible.

[Mark Hampton]

It's also interesting to note the various interpretations of this image that he made over the years. At the AIPAD show last week I saw a Moonrise with a very light sky made (apparently) before he augmented the foreground by dipping the negative in selenium toner. The sky around the moon in that print was neutral gray. It wasn't black until the very top. I have to wonder about the artistic intentions of someone who can't decide how he wants an image to look from print to print or from year to year.



Jim, Sounds like an idea for another thread start one and we will follow you on your path !


Perhaps I should have selected another image to demonstrate what I feel is visual incoherence. I've certainly made plenty of them, but I don't have any of them scanned. Moonrise and Clearing Winter Storm as such sacred cows that objective discussions of them become almost impossible.


Jim, Could the visual incoherence be your reading of the image informed by your life/understandin g/experience / prejudice etc.

the image is neither coherent or incoherent - it is after all an image - the reader on the other hand brings all his/heer baggage to bear (grrrrr / that's a joke / love that word)....

a just and intuitive thought i thought i think.

cheers

[Tom dinning]

Reading his account of how he made that image in The Making of 40 Photographs brings you to the realization that he didn't compose it at all. There wasn't time for that. He couldn't find his meter and had to compute the correct exposure using the luminance of the moon which he knew to be 250 c/sq. ft. and adjusting for the aperture he used and filter factor. As soon as he put the slide back into the holder the clouds were gone.

It's also interesting to note the various interpretations of this image that he made over the years. At the AIPAD show last week I saw a Moonrise with a very light sky made (apparently) before he augmented the foreground by dipping the negative in selenium toner. The sky around the moon in that print was neutral gray. It wasn't black until the very top. I have to wonder about the artistic intentions of someone who can't decide how he wants an image to look from print to print or from year to year.

Perhaps I should have selected another image to demonstrate what I feel is visual incoherence. I've certainly made plenty of them, but I don't have any of them scanned. Moonrise and Clearing Winter Storm as such sacred cows that objective discussions of them become almost impossible.

I'm scratching my head here a bit, Jim. I was wondering if you wanted an objective discussion to replace yours or you wanted to start one and didn't know how.
and was it you or someone else who is suggesting Moonrise over Hernandez would be better without Hernandez or was that someone else's objective discussion?
Is it at all possible that it may be your thinking is the thing that lacks coherency and not the photo?
Your comments and those of others reminds me of comments I often here in galleries where the 'objective' commentator might criticize a Titian because the red sash doesn't match the curtains.
Irrespective of sacred coweez can we not send the milk from which we feed, sour with comments
requiring the alteration of recognized art by anyone with a camera and a pair of scissors.
This does remind me of the painting commonly called 'Nightwatch' which was trimmed by its commissioner to fit between the doorways on the wall where it was hung. In doing this we lost 2 m of a recognized masterpiece, even in anyone's mind. I hope it improved its coherency.
I know there is a constitution were you live that advocates, in fact demands, freedom of speech. But next time can you get someone to listen to you before you post it here just in case it lacks coherency or isn't murderously subjective.
Cheers
Tom

[Tom dinning]

Another test which I often apply when viewing photographs and always when composing my own is to remove an element in my mind's eye. Does that improve or detract from the image? In the case of Clearing Winter Storm, imagine the picture without the two trees in the right foreground. In my opinion doing that would greatly improve the image. Visually incoherent.

Try removing any element in this one (http://ccp.uair.arizona.edu/item/9967). The leaf in the upper left corner, for example. To do that would ruin the image. It's very visually coherent.

I'm frightened to track back any further for fear of finding a few bits trimmed from my shots, Jim.
I think it's a fine thing you do with your own shots but how arrogant of you to even contemplate doing it to someone else's. Let me guess. I reckon you also check people's fridges to see if the cheese is separate from the milk, look distainly at passers by if they are wearing brown shoes with blue trousers and consider it beneath yourself to attend a charity art show run by the local Women's Auxiliary fund raisers.
I'm just wondering what I can trim to greatly improve the high opinion of yourself you obviously hold.

[Asher Kelman]

I'm frightened to track back any further for fear of finding a few bits trimmed from my shots, Jim.
I think it's a fine thing you do with your own shots but how arrogant of you to even contemplate doing it to someone else's. Let me guess. I reckon you also check people's fridges to see if the cheese is separate from the milk, look

Tom,

Yes, it does seem like arrogance. However, I'd offer that there was, perhaps, no arrogance here at all. At least none intended. The object has been, if I understand it right, to try to find rulers by which to measure or at least grasp the concept of coherency of images. So if we take Ansel Adams' photographs as examples of excellent work, then do we understand more of what coherency might be. That's the goal we are focused on here, not any wish to cut up any work of art that stands as a recognized and iconic treasure.

Michael and Paula are generously giving us examples of work that are, in each case meticulously made from the very first judgement, whether every element required is in the picture as mass the ground glass image maximized in its structural integrity, balance, interest and originality and all the way to the final presentation print. From these examples we want to have take home lessons on how to better build our pictures ourselves. Since there's no objective definition of coherence in photography that we've come across so far, looking at other outstanding pictures (that might not have such coherence), could help us understand at least the gestalt of coherence operating or not.,

It may be that coherence is a term like, "Beauty" which depends on us building cultural libraries or examples and also on innate proclivities of the human mind.

Asher

[Jerome Marot]

I'd offer that there was, perhaps, no arrogance here at all. At least none intended. The object has been, if I understand it right, to try to find rulers by which to measure or at least grasp the concept of coherency of images.

Exactly. In my opinion, there is no arrogance at all in trying to understand what makes a masterpiece work, but humility. And in doing so, I feel that anything goes, even deconstructing that masterpiece, as long as it helps me understand and feel.

[Jerome Marot]

This does remind me of the painting commonly called 'Nightwatch' which was trimmed by its commissioner to fit between the doorways on the wall where it was hung. In doing this we lost 2 m of a recognized masterpiece, even in anyone's mind.

Not quite. A 17th century copy of the original by Gerrit Lundens at the National Gallery, London. Here, showing what was removed from the crop:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Nachtwacht-kopie-van-voor-1712.jpg/766px-Nachtwacht-kopie-van-voor-1712.jpg

[Jim Shanesy]

Not quite. A 17th century copy of the original by Gerrit Lundens at the National Gallery, London. Here, showing what was removed from the crop:



I think the crop in this case detracts from the image. It's masterfully composed and is a superb example of just what I was talking about.

For the record, there are many works by AA which I think are masterpieces. One in particular nearly brought tears to my eyes when I saw it in the flesh. I was transfixed before it for about 1/2 hour before I could take my eyes away. However, Moonrise is not one of them. I like Clearing Winter Storm a lot more than Moonrise but it too is to me not as good a photograph as his best, almost all of which were made before the early 1940's.

I was making a sincere effort to respond to Mark's request for an example of an incoherent photograph. I felt that Michael might be reluctant to point to any one photograph as an example for fear of offending anyone. I can't recall ever having seen one of his or Paula's that wasn't beautifully structured.

I apologize for any offense my opinion may have caused, but I believe that Ansel Adams is way overhyped. I won't refer to him again.

[Jim Shanesy]

Jim, Could the visual incoherence be your reading of the image informed by your life/understandin g/experience / prejudice etc.


Of course. My life experience informs my reading of anything, be it music, art or literature. What else can the mind draw upon?

[Asher Kelman]

http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/hamleeCatavina2003.jpg

Paula Chamlee: Cataviñia, Baja, California, 2003



Paula,

It's so hard to remove the instant recognition of the female shape. I wonder whether such content can subconsciously creep into feelings of coherence, even though you had not the slightest thought of anything but composition and the plant.

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

Of course. My life experience informs my reading of anything, be it music, art or literature. What else can the mind draw upon?

Jim,

that is the point that I am making here.

a picture cannot be coherent or incoherent - only the reading of it can be and that is the subjective view of the reader.

as makers (as has been pointed out in the thread) we are responsable for providing a platform that the viewer enters - the structure of a work is grain or pixels everything rests on these foundations.

I guess here the artists make work that they feel gives a visual sense in relation to their search for truth or beauty of the photograph especially in relation to the silver / platinum print.

It's always interesting to find out about people's approaches to making work - and refreshing to cut through the bullshit of the mythos that get subscribed to art by markets / dealers and listen directly to other makers.

cheers

[Jim Shanesy]

http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/hamleeCatavina2003.jpg

Paula Chamlee: Cataviñia, Baja, California, 2003



Paula,

It's so hard to remove the instant recognition of the female shape. I wonder whether such content can subconsciously creep into feelings of coherence, even though you had not the slightest thought of anything but composition and the plant.

Asher

In her introductory essay to Paula's book Natural Connections Estelle Justim touches on this very point, noting that Paula is "unafraid of sensuality".

Nevertheless, I don't see any female form in Paula's cactus picture. This would certainly seem to validate Mark's point that photographic meaning is to be found in the eye of the beholder.

[Asher Kelman]

I have moved OFF TOPIC (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15629) comments to keep this thread on track.

Asher

[Jerome Marot]

I have moved OFF TOPIC comments to keep this thread on track.

Where are they?


Here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15629)

[Mark Hampton]

Where are they?

In toms basement, with cem and ken :-)

[Tom dinning]

In toms basement, with cem and ken :-)

There are readings of off-line comments each evening in the basement between 10 and 11 pm. Tea is served. Bookings are essential.
Tonight's comments will cover such topics as 'the implications of fare rises on the Stockport-Buxton bus route on juxtupositioning in current trend in Middle Eastern photography' and 'Recipes for diabetics who own large format cameras.' our guest reader will be Alf Fraser, garage attendant at the recently opened fuel stop on University Drive.

I look forward to a great evening of discussion with my newly found friends.
Cheers
Tom.

[Mark Hampton]

There are readings of off-line comments each evening in the basement between 10 and 11 pm. Tea is served. Bookings are essential.
Tonight's comments will cover such topics as 'the implications of fare rises on the Stockport-Buxton bus route on juxtupositioning in current trend in Middle Eastern photography' and 'Recipes for diabetics who own large format cameras.' our guest reader will be Alf Fraser, garage attendant at the recently opened fuel stop on University Drive.

I look forward to a great evening of discussion with my newly found friends.
Cheers
Tom.

Tom,

'Recipes for diabetics who own large format cameras.' sounds like a stunning book - have you read them 'Every sunset is different - photography in the jelly mold tradition' - honestly the people under my house can't get enough of it !

how may places are on your ehh shall we call them worky shops ?

[Michael A. Smith]

]Paula’s photograph, made in Iceland, is an excellent example of the tones creating energetic eye movement throughout the entire picture space.


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/P_Grindivik_Iceland_2004.jpg

Paul Chamlee: Grindivík, Iceland, 2004


What is the subject here? It is not any one thing, but the relationship of all of the black marks to each other. That is the hallmark of a coherent, unified photograph. There are no “dead” areas and if any of the marks are removed the photograph falls apart. Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there.

The movement of the eyes is inherently a pleasurable thing. If, in our photographs we can impel the eyes of the viewer to move we are giving visual pleasure. Visual pleasure must be something very deep and meaningful. Otherwise, why would art museums and their contents be such an important part of our culture? They exist for one reason only—to give visual pleasure.


Michael's Photograph: Washington, DC, 1984: I never talk about the act of making any of my photographs except for this one. I do so in the hope that the story will lead others to consider the making of their photographs just as carefully.





http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Washington_DC_1984.jpg

Michael A. Smith: Washington, DC, 1984




I was driving along the Potomac River in Washington, DC, and this scene caught my eye. I could not park my truck until I had driven another quarter mile. I walked back, without my 35-pound camera, lenses, holders, and tripod and asked the couple in the foreground if they planned to stay there for a while. When they said, “Yes,” I went back to get my equipment.

I made a couple of photographs and then I saw the figure at the right edge put his hand on his hip. I immediately saw the relationship of triangles created by his arm, the knee of the man in the foreground, and the arm of the woman lying down on the left side of the photograph. I quickly swung the camera around (I had been pointing it in a different direction) and focused. I was using a 24” lens, and as you know, the longer the lens the harder they are to focus, so focusing quickly was a challenge. I was more anxious while making this exposure than I have ever been before or since. Would the figure on the right keep his hand on his hip? If he moved his arm, I had no photograph. I focused the image on the ground glass and then I realized that the figures standing up, and the boats, were not in the right place. After a few very anxious moments I felt that the standing figures and the boats were in the right place and I made the exposure.

This photograph is an example of using a 35-pound camera like a 35-millimeter camera. It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter.

[Antonio Correia]

In my very humble opinion - you are going to beat me - Paula's image means nothing to me.
Sorry. I shouldn't have told this I know.
It doesn't give me any pleasure to look at. It is a trivial image.
Perhaps I am nothing but a stupid Portuguese who doesn't understand these subjects. I do accept that point of view. Just me and my way of saying things which I shouldn't.
-
Michael's image: Fantastic. Great. An image with meaning, composition, a pleasure to look at.
I didn't see the triagles until I read about them. What stroke me at once were the bicycles and the couple on the grass.
The blurred (moving) objets like the boats or the arm of the guy at left and the apparent non-horizontal orientation of the picture doesn't bother me at all.
It is very nice, well composed and a pleasure to look at (again)
It reminds me "Le déjeuner sur l'herbe (http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/edouard-manet-le-dejeuner-sur-lherbe.html)". How the hell could I associate these two images I ask myself.

[Antonio Correia]

Just to add that the choice of the crop is essencial.
I mean the ratio of the crop.
Well done.
Do you change the ratio all the time or are you "glued" to one - two or three - in particular ?

[Asher Kelman]

]Paula’s photograph, made in Iceland, is an excellent example of the tones creating energetic eye movement throughout the entire picture space.

What is the subject here? It is not any one thing, but the relationship of all of the black marks to each other. That is the hallmark of a coherent, unified photograph. There are no “dead” areas and if any of the marks are removed the photograph falls apart. Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there.

The movement of the eyes is inherently a pleasurable thing. If, in our photographs we can impel the eyes of the viewer to move we are giving visual pleasure. Visual pleasure must be something very deep and meaningful. Otherwise, why would art museums and their contents be such an important part of our culture? They exist for one reason only—to give visual pleasure.







http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/P_Grindivik_Iceland_2004.jpg

Paul Chamlee: Grindivík, Iceland, 2004


Antonio,

This picture by Paula is indeed very different from that of Michael. The latter is an obvious bucolic pleasant and relaxing community scene that we feel an affinity to. We aspire to have such times for ourselves and our children. It's, after all, the very best of times. So pleasure is there by the bucketful! That's just the content. The fitting composition you've already noted.

And then Paula's picture, what do I see in it? Well it's a different kind of art. Humans also like patterns, even stochastic, irregular arrangements of marks like this which either give a feeling of some appealing texture, rhythm or beat. But what's special here?

Well, it all depends what you bring to it. I believe that such pictures can act as muse aids. Look at it and see forms appear and allow your mind to imagine what's there and what might be there too, between and behind what's visible. To me this is like a Japanese ink drawing that I don't understand just yet. Each time I visit, I see new figures.

Now pictures of real things are a sure bet for getting us involved. So yes, Michael's picture content get's our emotional strings twanged and we're all going to be drawn in by empathy. Paula's picture, OTOH, is, I believe something of a gift to those who would stop and just meditate. It's a different kind of art experience. One presents human feelings defined and cooked, ready to enjoy and the other requires one to stop erase other distractions and allow and trust your own brain to populate the image with something of worth to you. If nothing happens then truly it's not art for you.

Tom,

I do hope that you don't find my reaction to Paula's photograph too "artsyfartsy", but I just wanted to express how I experience such images. I'd be interested in your own reactions here.

Asher

[Jerome Marot]

In my very humble opinion - you are going to beat me - Paula's image means nothing to me.

See how things are different: for me, the opposite is true. I find genius in Paula's image, while Michael's does not talk to me. Interestingly, I tried the exercise of covering elements to see wether they are important (I learned about that exercise long ago, actually) and indeed I can't remove any of the elements of Paula's image, except -maybe- a few mm of the left (the image is not better, but still works). On the other hand, on Michael's image I have the confusing feeling that there is one bicycle too much, which may simply mean that I don't understand the picture.

But what I find really interesting is how two people can have different opinions on a picture. And you should not be ashamed of not being moved by Paula's picture: there's not much one can do, either this picture talks to you or it does not. Not being moved is a perfectly valid opinion. However, I really wonder why people's response can be so different. I have the feeling that if we had the answer to that question, we would make real progresses in the visual arts.

[Antonio Correia]

Jerome I am not ashamed of not being moved by this or any other image/art object. :)

I am self confident enough not to :) :)

The appreciation of an Art work depends on the cultural and social background of the person and every individual - even having the same cultural basis - may have different points of view.

:)

[Michael A. Smith]

All of Paula's and my photographs are based on abstraction. Some, like Paula's here, is obviously "abstract," while in my photograph the abstract structure is not so obvious.

We do not set up our cameras unless we have an emotional response to something. But once the camera is set up we have one task: to make the best picture we can, whether or not it has anything to do with what first compelled us to set up our cumbersome cameras.

When we look at our mounted and overmatted photographs for the first time, we do so from about 8 to 10 feet away. In keeping that distance we are not involved with the specifics of the subject, but with the structure of the photograph--the abstract structure that underpins the content.

Without that structure there is not one photograph either of us has ever made that would hold even the slightest interest for us, no matter how deeply we felt when exposing the negative.

To the person who gets nothing from Paula's photograph. Just fine with us as we make our photographs for ourselves and as I believe I wrote earlier, everyone will bring their own life experiences to the viewing of any work of art. But I suspect you are looking at photographs for their content--for what the subject is. That's fine, as far as it goes, but your viewing experience, if you allowed it, could go much further.

When Paula and I teach our workshops we never discuss content of the photographs of our students as we assume that everyone will make photographs of things that move them emotionally, and so the content aspect is well taken care of. It is making photographs that are visually coherent--ones that have an abstract structural coherence that aspiring photographers need help with.

Many, many years ago I had a student who brought in a photograph of his cat. He told the class that it was a great photograph. (The photograph was terrible.) When I asked him why, he responded that he loved his cat. I explained to him that what he had to do was make a photograph of the cat in such a way that people who did not know his cat and even people who hated cats would look at his photograph of his cat and be moved by it. And the only way that is ever possible is if there is that abstract structure underpinning the content.

All we have in any black and white photograph are tones. The point is to make a photograph so that the rhythm of the tones give visual pleasure.

Michael A. Smith

[Michael A. Smith]

To answer the question about format. Paula's photographs are silver chloride contact prints made from 8x10-inch negatives. My photographs here are silver chloride contact prints made from 8x20-inch negatives. Neither Paula nor I have ever cropped a photograph, hence the aspect ratio always stays the same, except in a very few instances when, before the negative has been exposed, we realize that it does not fit the 8x10 or 8x20 aspect ratio. We do not consider that cropping.

We consider cropping to be a decision made in the darkroom when one realizes that one did not "get it right" when exposing the negative.

When all is said and done and a photograph is hanging on the wall, no one, including ourselves, cares if it was cropped or not. So why not crop you may ask? The answer it that the greatest pleasure for us, and we would assume, for everyone else, in making photographs is "getting it right" on the ground glass or viewing screen. It is also easier and much quicker later as no further decisions need to be made regarding where to put the edges of the photograph. That decision is made in the field.

Michael A. Smith

[Asher Kelman]

To answer the question about format. Paula's photographs are silver chloride contact prints made from 8x10-inch negatives. My photographs here are silver chloride contact prints made from 8x20-inch negatives. Neither Paula nor I have ever cropped a photograph, hence the aspect ratio always stays the same, except in a very few instances when, before the negative has been exposed, we realize that it does not fit the 8x10 or 8x20 aspect ratio. We do not consider that cropping.

We consider cropping to be a decision made in the darkroom when one realizes that one did not "get it right" when exposing the negative.

When all is said and done and a photograph is hanging on the wall, no one, including ourselves, cares if it was cropped or not. So why not crop you may ask? The answer it that the greatest pleasure for us, and we would assume, for everyone else, in making photographs is "getting it right" on the ground glass or viewing screen. It is also easier and much quicker later as no further decisions need to be made regarding where to put the edges of the photograph. That decision is made in the field.

Michael A. Smith


I admire the discipline of photographing exactly as one plans to print. Nicolas Claris tries to do that with his pictures of great boats and architecture. With LF, it goes with the territory and the mode of working. The ground glass is the arbiter of what's in and what's excluded.

For much of my work, however, I'm using the camera to gather together an image that no lenses I possess could capture in one take. So there must be an allowance in the photograph, the final print that is, for something to be going on in ones's mind as the different portions of the image are assembled.

Asher

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So why not crop you may ask? The answer it that the greatest pleasure for us, and we would assume, for everyone else, in making photographs is "getting it right" on the ground glass or viewing screen. It is also easier and much quicker later as no further decisions need to be made regarding where to put the edges of the photograph. That decision is made in the field.

Hi Michael,

While I agree with getting it as much right as feasible at the moment of capture, following your strict cropping approach suggests that you only photograph subjects that happen to have a composition that exactly fits your film. That doesn't make sense to me, unless one only shoots still lifes which can be rearranged to fit the fixed frame.

To me, composition is important, but then some subjects dictate a different aspect ratio than what my camera happens to offer. I'll adjust my crop to improve the composition if needed. What's more, I largely compose without a camera by choosing my vantage point. The image/composition is in my vison, before I set up the camera. In that scenario I enjoy the freedom of stitching which allows to add enough of the scene to improve the composition within it's 'natural frame', not my camera's frame. Sometimes it's more square, sometimes it's narrower and high, or wide.

Another way of looking at aspect ratios could be to aim for a pleasing proportions, rather than some historical shape of 8x10. For instance 8x13 inch would be considered much more pleasing by most humans, because it's closer to a golden ratio. But again, in my view, restricting oneself to that particular ratio doesn't make sense either (although it's more sensible than 8x10) for the same reasons, natural scenes do not always follow a frame one happens to use because the camera dictates that.

Cheers,
Bart

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Michael,

To me, composition is important, but then some subjects dictate a different aspect ratio than what my camera happens to offer. I'll adjust my crop to improve the composition if needed. What's more, I largely compose without a camera by choosing my vantage point. The image/composition is in my vison, before I set up the camera. In that scenario I enjoy the freedom of stitching which allows to add enough of the scene to improve the composition within it's 'natural frame', not my camera's frame. Sometimes it's more square, sometimes it's narrower and high, or wide.

[/QUOTE]


Hi Bart and Michael,

I have thought about Bart's framing of the picture in his mind. I do the same. Then the camera transports that vision home either in one piece with nothing to cut away or as closely as possible with one or more overlapping frames. The composition is always in my brain. I just want to get the right things in and the wrong things excluded.

So what about getting everything right on the glass? Well, to me it follows a noble tradition in photography. One loves one's camera and the chosen lens like a son or daughter one brought into the world. It's a special relationship, an extension of oneself, yet totally separate. If one were to look for a partner for one's child, (hardly achievable today), then the nature of that person has to decide the who might match and yield a lifetime of mutual happiness and building together.

That, I think is what is going on with the fixed formats used in these two great LF film cameras. The scenes are sought out that will lovingly fit the ground glass of the respective camera.

That choice, of matching what one finds with what one has that one loves, requires insight and great skill to be successful.

I, OTOH, make the digital camera subservient to the framing my brain wants to make. Still, I respect and sometimes envy working restricted to one lens and format. That will yield fabulous results as one becomes a dedicated specialist, rapidly excluding other possibilities and more intuitively selecting what's perfect for that opportunity. That, Michael is what you and Paula have done so well.

Asher

[Michael A. Smith]

We do not consider it cropping if the subject does not fit the frame and the final print is a different aspect ratio than that of the camera. What we do consider to be cropping is when the first print is made in the darkroom that one realizes that one "missed it: and that the photograph would be better if part of it were removed.

Limiting oneself to a particular format, however, leads one to be more creative, rather than less.

Also, our "image/composition," to use your words, is never fixed before we set up the camera. We use the camera as a tool for discovery and growth. If one sees the photograph completely before setting up the camera one is confirming what one already knows, and no growth is taking place. For us, to quote one of my favorite poets, e.e.cummings, "An artist, whose every agony is to grow." Making good photographs is easy. Paula and I could make a dozen a day, every day, but that is useless unless we are challenged and forced to grow.

Michael A. Smith

[Mark Hampton]

Also, our "image/composition," to use your words, is never fixed before we set up the camera. We use the camera as a tool for discovery and growth. If one sees the photograph completely before setting up the camera one is confirming what one already knows, and no growth is taking place. For us, to quote one of my favorite poets, e.e.cummings, "An artist, whose every agony is to grow." Making good photographs is easy. Paula and I could make a dozen a day, every day, but that is useless unless we are challenged and forced to grow.

Michael A. Smith

Michael,

interesting idea - if I am constrained by a dogma I will be truly free and able to grow. A few people have run experiments on this. I wonder if their findings mirror your intuitive approach ?

just an thought...

nothing to read here people... move on...

it was just a thought ... you cant see it.... thats it just move on...

[Asher Kelman]

In fact, it has been demonstrated to be effective for a few folks like Henri Bresson who used his Leica rangefinder, and just one lens, a 50mm. That was the lens for most of his work! Even today, some folks swear by this restrictive approach. Mike Johnston (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html) for one! I have the theory that it makes the camera an extension of the body, totally integrated with one's mind. Read Steve Huffington's use of the 35 mm focal length. Just one lens (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/06/09/why-shooting-with-just-a-35mm-lens-can-help-your-photography/)!

I learned for years on a 35mm focal length too and then switched to 50mm for more intimacy and stayed that way for over 10 years! Just one lens! So while counterintuitive, using a format and lens one is committed to, has been the key to some folks remarkable success.

Of course, if you want to photograph an manic brown bear mother who's cubs are lost, or a tiny tit in a tall tree, at least 600 mm is recommended!

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

In fact, it has been demonstrated to be effective for a few folks like Henri Bresson who used his Leica rangefinder, and just one lens, a 50mm. That was the lens for most of his work! Even today, some folks swear by this restrictive approach. Mike Johnston (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html) for one! I have the theory that it makes the camera an extension of the body, totally integrated with one's mind. Read Steve Huffington's use of the 35 mm focal length. Just one lens (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/06/09/why-shooting-with-just-a-35mm-lens-can-help-your-photography/)!

I learned for years on a 35mm focal length too and then switched to 50mm for more intimacy and stayed that way for over 10 years! Just one lens! So while counterintuitive, using a format and lens one is committed to, has been the key to some folks remarkable success.

Of course, if you want to photograph an manic brown bear mother who's cubs are lost, or a tiny tit in a tall tree, at least 600 mm is recommended!

Asher

Asher,

the best way to make work is to make it.

cheers

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Restrictions allow to concentrate and get the best out of a given setup. Constant ogling for the new and better "stuff" tends to dilute. At least this is what I have experienced.

[Mark Hampton]

Restrictions allow to concentrate and get the best out of a given setup. Constant ogling for the new and better "stuff" tends to dilute. At least this is what I have experienced.

Klaus,

that's as mabye - but wasn't the point I was making - A dogmatic approach to making work doesn't just depend on equipment - it is the whole of the making process I was talking about.

cheers

[Jerome Marot]

I can see that, even if having complete freedom and unlimited technical resources does not automatically make one's pictures better, constraining oneself to a limited approach may not be the solution either.

Or, as people say, "washing your car to make it rain does not work".

[Asher Kelman]

I can see that, even if having complete freedom and unlimited technical resources does not automatically make one's pictures better, constraining oneself to a limited approach may not be the solution either.

Or, as people say, "washing your car to make it rain does not work".

Jerome and Mark,

I think what might be worth considering is the advantage of narrowing one's way of looking at the world and then seeing more.

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

Jerome and Mark,

I think what might be worth considering is the advantage of narrowing one's way of looking at the world and then seeing more.

Asher

Asher,


I think what might be worth considering, is the advantage of opening one's way of looking at the world to try to see more. Then decide how to represent what you have experienced if that is what you intend to do.

cheers

[Asher Kelman]

]Paula’s photograph, made in Iceland, is an excellent example of the tones creating energetic eye movement throughout the entire picture space.


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/P_Grindivik_Iceland_2004.jpg

Paul Chamlee: Grindivík, Iceland, 2004


What is the subject here? It is not any one thing, but the relationship of all of the black marks to each other. That is the hallmark of a coherent, unified photograph. There are no “dead” areas and if any of the marks are removed the photograph falls apart. Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there.

The movement of the eyes is inherently a pleasurable thing. If, in our photographs we can impel the eyes of the viewer to move we are giving visual pleasure. Visual pleasure must be something very deep and meaningful. Otherwise, why would art museums and their contents be such an important part of our culture? They exist for one reason only—to give visual pleasure.


Michael's Photograph: Washington, DC, 1984: I never talk about the act of making any of my photographs except for this one. I do so in the hope that the story will lead others to consider the making of their photographs just as carefully.





http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Washington_DC_1984.jpg

Michael A. Smith: Washington, DC, 1984




I was driving along the Potomac River in Washington, DC, and this scene caught my eye. I could not park my truck until I had driven another quarter mile. I walked back, without my 35-pound camera, lenses, holders, and tripod and asked the couple in the foreground if they planned to stay there for a while. When they said, “Yes,” I went back to get my equipment.

I made a couple of photographs and then I saw the figure at the right edge put his hand on his hip. I immediately saw the relationship of triangles created by his arm, the knee of the man in the foreground, and the arm of the woman lying down on the left side of the photograph. I quickly swung the camera around (I had been pointing it in a different direction) and focused. I was using a 24” lens, and as you know, the longer the lens the harder they are to focus, so focusing quickly was a challenge. I was more anxious while making this exposure than I have ever been before or since. Would the figure on the right keep his hand on his hip? If he moved his arm, I had no photograph. I focused the image on the ground glass and then I realized that the figures standing up, and the boats, were not in the right place. After a few very anxious moments I felt that the standing figures and the boats were in the right place and I made the exposure.

This photograph is an example of using a 35-pound camera like a 35-millimeter camera. It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter.


This post is once of the most definite describing the highly successful work of Michael and Paula. Two statements stand out as especially important. The first is rather unique and the second seems so obvious that one might let it pass without any comment.


"Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there."

"It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter"


Let's just address the second seemingly obvious statement, "It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter" Well, it does seem right but let's look further. Camera technical form and capability does limit one's work! So, if one wishes to take a picture of a subject, like a fox on the hills side and just have the eyes in focus, then first one needs a long lens, then a wide aperture. No other camera system will work! Getting this fox with my Crown Graphic with a 135mm lens would not be possible under most all circumstances. The two, subject and camera, are then related. Change the subject to a mother bear, (with her cubs at a river fishing), then for sure that wonderful wide LF camera, won't work, Michael. Of course you might build a concrete "blind" close to the water, but then that is really "part" of your camera. So camera and subject do need to be dealt with as an interrelated duo.

So finding the subject depends on what particular lens-equipped camera/s one has, as that fact alone already limits the visually impressive compositions that can be entertained.


I'll attempt to address the first assertion shortly.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

]Paula’s photograph, made in Iceland, is an excellent example of the tones creating energetic eye movement throughout the entire picture space.


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/P_Grindivik_Iceland_2004.jpg

Paul Chamlee: Grindivík, Iceland, 2004


What is the subject here? It is not any one thing, but the relationship of all of the black marks to each other. That is the hallmark of a coherent, unified photograph. There are no “dead” areas and if any of the marks are removed the photograph falls apart. Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there.

The movement of the eyes is inherently a pleasurable thing. If, in our photographs we can impel the eyes of the viewer to move we are giving visual pleasure. Visual pleasure must be something very deep and meaningful. Otherwise, why would art museums and their contents be such an important part of our culture? They exist for one reason only—to give visual pleasure.


Michael's Photograph: Washington, DC, 1984: I never talk about the act of making any of my photographs except for this one. I do so in the hope that the story will lead others to consider the making of their photographs just as carefully.





http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Washington_DC_1984.jpg

Michael A. Smith: Washington, DC, 1984




I was driving along the Potomac River in Washington, DC, and this scene caught my eye. I could not park my truck until I had driven another quarter mile. I walked back, without my 35-pound camera, lenses, holders, and tripod and asked the couple in the foreground if they planned to stay there for a while. When they said, “Yes,” I went back to get my equipment.

I made a couple of photographs and then I saw the figure at the right edge put his hand on his hip. I immediately saw the relationship of triangles created by his arm, the knee of the man in the foreground, and the arm of the woman lying down on the left side of the photograph. I quickly swung the camera around (I had been pointing it in a different direction) and focused. I was using a 24” lens, and as you know, the longer the lens the harder they are to focus, so focusing quickly was a challenge. I was more anxious while making this exposure than I have ever been before or since. Would the figure on the right keep his hand on his hip? If he moved his arm, I had no photograph. I focused the image on the ground glass and then I realized that the figures standing up, and the boats, were not in the right place. After a few very anxious moments I felt that the standing figures and the boats were in the right place and I made the exposure.

This photograph is an example of using a 35-pound camera like a 35-millimeter camera. It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter.


Thus set of two pictures I'm so fond of provide a really excellent insight into good photograph making. The need for investment in time and thought to what constitutes a composition that actually works beyond the moment of immediate interest.

"Cover with your finger, for example, the dark mark in the upper right-hand corner. See how the entire upper right side of the photograph dies—meaning, you eye doesn’t want to go there."

This statement was crafted, not simply a blurted out "unprocessed thought". Michael really means this! The reduction of components of a picture to "black marks" reveals how serious a matter this is. The balance of the picture can be destroyed by removing a mark. no reference is made, in this to the subject matter! This is a very fundamental clarity that has been proposed for a guide.

My feeling is that the statement, while having obvious merit, overreaches. :)

Thanks Michael and Paula for this eye-opening and thought challenging series. :)

Asher

[Jerome Marot]

Let's just address the second seemingly obvious statement, "It is never the camera that limits one’s choice of subject matter" Well, it does seem right but let's look further. Camera technical form and capability does limit one's work.


Even more so than one would realize. Looking at pictures from the masters of last century it dawned on me that some pictures came to be because of the way the viewfinder of the cameras of the times was constructed. For example, pictures taken with a twin lens reflex (e.g. a Rolleiflex) are typically taken from a point of view about 1m above the ground (versus 1,5m above the ground for, e.g. a SLR or a rangefinder) and when people are involved, the contact between them looks visually quite different than when the camera obstruct direct communication between the photographer and the subject.

[Asher Kelman]

Even more so than one would realize. Looking at pictures from the masters of last century it dawned on me that some pictures came to be because of the way the viewfinder of the cameras of the times was constructed. For example, pictures taken with a twin lens reflex (e.g. a Rolleiflex) are typically taken from a point of view about 1m above the ground (versus 1,5m above the ground for, e.g. a SLR or a rangefinder) and when people are involved, the contact between them looks visually quite different than when the camera obstruct direct communication between the photographer and the subject.


Jerome,

That's a great point. With LF, generally the camera would also be set up at a height convenient to working the camera.

Theres' more to the effect of camera type on picture outcome. Let's continue that idea and consider the Leica and other classic rangefinder cameras. The viewfinder is often a portion of the wide view seen through the eye-piece. When one focusses and keeps the other eye open or else looks at the frame within the frame, one is seeing a scene set in a larger context. So there's a greater tendency perhaps to adjust composition based not only on what already is in the scene, but also what is evidently about to enter the scene. This is not so obvious with viewfinders that only show what is framed as in an SLR or LF camera.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Meanwhile, I just heard from Michael and Paula,

"We are now in Iceland, as part of a one-month trip in Europe: ten countries in twenty-seven days. We will be going to Art Basel ...................."

Still we have the next two pictures imminent! :)

Asher

[Michael A. Smith]

These photographs were made at the same place at the same time. Wherever one happens to be at any moment the number of possible fine photographs to be made is virtually infinite. One point we want to make here is that unlike many other photographers, we never wait for the light to be “right.” For us

"the light is always right or we would not see “it,” whatever that “it” may be."

If one has an assignment, say, to photograph a particular building then, yes, there will be times when the light is better than at other times, and if we had such an assignment we would wait for those times. But when we are photographing we are not looking for anything in particular; we are just looking. Were the light not right we would not “see” whatever it is we are looking at.

We have never seen something we would like to make a photograph of and said to ourselves, “We will wait until the afternoon or evening or come back on a different day, when the light is “better.” It is enough just to have seen whatever we saw. The visual experience will always be with us, whether we make an exposure or not. We think of making an exposure as the icing on the cake. The visual experience, with or without a camera and film, is the cake.

And, as in these two photographs, we most often photograph in the middle of the day. For one thing, one is not rushed at those times, as the light is not changing quickly. This allows for a leisurely, yet extremely intense, experience. Perhaps the experience is more intense because in the middle of the day when the light is not changing rapidly we can take our time and let the subject speak to us more deeply. We are reminded here of something the great American painter John Marin wrote, “How to paint the landscape. First you make your bow to the landscape. When and if the landscape bows back to you, then you may paint the landscape.”

Also, in the middle of the day the light is more even. And as we are interested in having the subject of the photograph be everything in the frame, our vision is “democratic”—giving equal importance to everything—everything as subject, not just a particular thing that is part of the scene. Illustration is about things; Art is about space.


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Kleifarvatn, Iceland, 2004.jpg

Michael A. Smith: Kleifarvatn, Iceland


I recall that "I would never have made this photograph had the cloud in the sky not been, more or less, exactly in the middle of the picture. "

The function of the cloud is to move the sky forward, somewhat nullifying the illusion of deep space, bringing the background forward, keeping the “integrity of the picture plane,” as the abstract expressionist painters would have described it. Or, as in a Cezanne painting, we want to have both a deep space and the flattening of that space—both at the same time.


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/At Kleifarvatn, Iceland, 2004.jpg

Paula Chamlee: Kleifarvatn, Iceland



In the photographs Paula and I were both standing in almost the very same spot. However, Paula was looking down at the beach and made a photograph that appears to be more “abstract” than the one I made, which shows a deeper space.

[Antonio Correia]

Asher, what happened to yesterday's posts by Mark Hampton ?

I would like to comment on them and on these last images but it was too late at night and I went zzzzzzzzzz :)
-
I found myself smiling when I read and I quote Michael's "I would never have made this photograph had the cloud in the sky not been, more or less, exactly in the middle of the picture. "

I just wonder who believes this ! :) Well, I don't anyway. Sorry Michael :) Perhaps I am just a stupid Portuguese in the late age crisis. Who knows ?

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, what happened to yesterday's posts by Mark Hampton ?

I would like to comment on them and on these last images but it was too late at night and I went zzzzzzzzzz :)

Mark and I are figuring that out. New daughter topics get to become new threads. Mark may incorporate his ideas in "Reading the Reading". That is a fascinating even dangerous journey to the limits of out ability to read pictures.
-
I found myself smiling when I read and I quote Michael's "I would never have made this photograph had the cloud in the sky not been, more or less, exactly in the middle of the picture. "

I just wonder who believes this ! :) Well, I don't anyway. Sorry Michael :) Perhaps I am just a stupid Portuguese in the late age crisis. Who knows ?

Well, Antonio,

Michael is really adamant and to me convincing about this habit of his. I've spent enough time with both of them. His stated scheme of working is really finely tuned like a sniper in the police crisis teams. They do not fire unless the have exact identity, confirmation and confirmed order to squeeze the trigger. They don't just take a few shots for fun! Michael and Paula are that serious about their compositions and the restraint works for them too!

If you would study under Robert Lipsett the master violin pedagogue at the Colburn School of Music, likely as not, you'd have to go through many strict procedures that make up his proven discipline of turning out prize winning concert violinists who project the finest music. He's that good that any disagreements are really irrelevant. However, if one would fly to Moscow and get a different teacher, the collections of imperatives, while overlapping, might include elements that are different but somehow "needed" and unalterable.

Again, I go back to Bart Van Der wolf's wonderful quote,

"If you do what you did, you'll get what you got!"

Ask the Pope how he conducts Mass. He has rules too and those rules work. If you follow them, you will conduct a Mass successfully and all the faithful will likely be happy and tithe well. It has worked thus, for thousands of years!

Michael and Paula are sharing the rules by which they work day in day out and end up selling pictures and getting them to collectors. I am impressed by Michael's picture of the folk relaxing by the river with bicycles on the grass. Every element does indeed appear essential. So I can see how M&P attention to structure, does indeed give them admirable results. I'd love to have made that one picture. If following his advice would get me closer to that quality, I'd be more than satisfied.

However, I'm not trying to produce Michael's pictures, just enjoy and learn from his work. That way, I can see what new tools I might use in some of my own journeys.

I could sum up my take home message, after being attracted to a place, get to the right observing position and then have enough patience to have whatever you need in the picture and what's wrong leave. If it doesn't meet your standards for all the investment in time and effort in the darkroom, don't bother to take the picture! For film, this is necessary.

Asher

[Antonio Correia]

... Ask the Pope how he conducts Mass. He has rules too and those rules work. If you follow them, you will conduct a Mass successfully and all the faithful will likely be happy and tithe well. It has worked thus, for thousands of years!..Asher

Asher do you really believe this ? I mean really ?

Thank you for the explanations about the photos. :)

[Asher Kelman]

Asher do you really believe this ? I mean really ?

Thank you for the explanations about the photos. :)

Ever bit of it! What works, works and in that context must be viewed as successful. However, you are free to change where you are standing. A gun to work, only has to be internally consistent with it's design and externally fit some matrix that allows its function. Same with art.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

"the light is always right or we would not see “it,” whatever that “it” may be."


I agree, but one can still decide what time is best to get the best deals at a store sale or to rob a bank, LOL!

http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Kleifarvatn, Iceland, 2004.jpg

Michael A. Smith: Kleifarvatn, Iceland


To get the dimensions, longer shadows would make getting the depth one wants.


However, Paula's work would change remarkably and be longer flat.


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/At Kleifarvatn, Iceland, 2004.jpg

Paula Chamlee: Kleifarvatn, Iceland


Asher

[Mark Hampton]

http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Washington_DC_1984.jpg

Michael A. Smith: Washington, DC, 1984



So I was thinking.... i kent this image.... its crops up from time to time in history.. a kind of Arcadian fantasy..


http://www.herencialatina.com/Izzy_Sanabria/asnieres.jpg

The Bathers at Asnieres - Georges Seurat

of course the Michael's image is not the same as this, but they do explore the same territory.

it would all be fine until one day 2 planes flew into a couple of towers ..... much later the Arcadian fantasy is played out to its fulfilment in the image below.




http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/thomas-hoepker-11-sept.jpg



Thomas Hoepker



this is a thought experiment.

[Jerome Marot]

And, as in these two photographs, we most often photograph in the middle of the day.

I wondered why you would write this when I first read it, because most books on the subject of landscape photography advise is to take photograph at the beginning or the end of the day. Maybe the reason is that your photographs are taken in black and white, so that you do not risk washed-out colors and, on the contrary, benefit from a more even distribution of grays with a flatter light.



http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Kleifarvatn, Iceland, 2004.jpg

Michael A. Smith: Kleifarvatn, Iceland


I recall that "I would never have made this photograph had the cloud in the sky not been, more or less, exactly in the middle of the picture. "

I tried to erase the cloud with photoshop to better grasp the effect. Indeed the sky needs something to give it presence.

This is a very complex picture. The composition is quite extraordinary. There is a bow in the right bottom rocks and a circular shape formed by the road, front rocks, shore line and horizon. Here again, I find that the composition makes my eyes move around. Interestingly, many lines lead the eye to the corners of the picture but each corner has a device to send the eye back and all four devices are different. I am particularly impressed by the little expanse of white rock on the bottom left corner. Without it, my eye stays blocked at that corner. Also: the cloud seems to be part of the device which sends my eye out of the top right corner.


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/At Kleifarvatn, Iceland, 2004.jpg

Paula Chamlee: Kleifarvatn, Iceland


I'll write more about Paula's picture at a later time, but I would like to point out that here again each corner has an element which is essential to send the viewer's eye back to the picture.

It is quite unusual to have essential elements right at the corner of the frame in photography or in classical paintings. For example, I could not find a painting from John Marin or Paul Cézanne with this kind of composition and I wonder why you gave these two names as examples.

[Alain Briot]

Michael,

Nice work and very thoughtful answers to questions.

[Mark Hampton]

So I was thinking.... i kent this image.... its crops up from time to time in history.. a kind of Arcadian fantasy..


http://www.herencialatina.com/Izzy_Sanabria/asnieres.jpg

The Bathers at Asnieres - Georges Seurat

of course the Michael's image is not the same as this, but they do explore the same territory.

it would all be fine until one day 2 planes flew into a couple of towers ..... much later the Arcadian fantasy is played out to its fulfilment in the image below.




http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/thomas-hoepker-11-sept.jpg



Thomas Hoepker



this is a thought experiment.

How did the experiment turn out for people .... the parallels in the works apparent i am guessing - we only have Michael to ask as the others never visit here - is placing the work in this historical context helpful to anyone reading this?

history is a funny thing - as Michael was making his image the cold war was being fought - AIDS was being fought - its strange to think at this time German reunification was 6 years away ... Arcadian fantasies of the west ...

opps - this all is off topic !

[Asher Kelman]

How did the experiment turn out for people .... the parallels in the works apparent i am guessing - we only have Michael to ask as the others never visit here - is placing the work in this historical context helpful to anyone reading this?

Mark,

The visitors here are plenty. Few dare to speak. That's very common when the work is i the top tier. We don't want to make fools of ourselves by saying something that exposes our naivitée.

history is a funny thing - as Michael was making his image the cold war was being fought - AIDS was being fought - its strange to think at this time German reunification was 6 years away ... Arcadian fantasies of the west ...
opps - this all is off topic !
not really off topic if Michael's picture evoked these thoughts. Look hoew powerful his work has been for you in this instance. Look at the chutzpa needed to express what you do and do you think a lot of folk can delver that? Mo most are too inhibited. You know that! However, they all read every word and take in the pictures.

As for history, there always has been an "AIDS" of the generation, an epidemic de jour, so to speak, be it black death, syphilis, typhus or tuberculosis. There always has been some microbe pooping out and massacring the folk. Look at the flu virus in World War I. 20 million killed. Makes AIDS a 3 day cold! Also there has always been an Afghanistan and a reunification happening somewhere on the planet. It just recycles.

The pictures, however, as you den instate, are very human, evocative and timeless.

Asher

[Antonio Correia]

... The visitors here are plenty. Few dare to speak. That's very common when the work is at the top tier. We don't want to make fools of ourselves by saying something that exposes our naiveté... Asher

Let me drop a few words about this Asher. Just my point of view and what I have seen to happen over the years in the Art area.
I pretty much agree with you.

Imagine a piece of Art - whatever it is - which is at our eyes and regardless of the author, a very common one. One of those about which we can say: "Anyone can do this" or "Even I could do this"

Let us suppose now that the author is a well known one, recognized in the area (area of activity or/and physical area which may be your city our the World). The work immediately stands behind the society as a good one and no one dares to comment negatively. On the contrary. Curious phenomena. !

If people do not comment it is perhaps that they - we - are afraid (:)) of showing a not so solid artist knowledge. So, the best thing to do is stay with the mouth shut. This is after all what you were referring to when writing about exposition to naiveté.

How can a piece of Art become famous ?
By the signature inserted ! Plain and simple.

How do you become famous ? Oh well... that is another "business" :) :)

[Asher Kelman]

Let me drop a few words about this Asher. Just my point of view and what I have seen to happen over the years in the Art area.
I pretty much agree with you....................

If people do not comment it is perhaps that they - we - are afraid (:)) of showing a not so solid artist knowledge. So, the best thing to do is stay with the mouth shut. This is after all what you were referring to when writing about exposition to naiveté.




Antonio,

Inviting our guest artists is based on my own judgement that the collections are worthy. So already, it's very biased. However, the work also represents well a segment of photography that is accepted as significant in classical photography. My own assertion is that such art can inform us as to good design and craft. So that adds to the weight of importance for me, but still the works are not in the Metropolitan Museum! Maybe one day! We intend to add guests to broaden the spectrum to include other sectors of artistic expression. However, much of the instinct will likely carry over. Then, perhaps, folk will be freer to comment as the works might get into their comfort zone.

For now here's the deal. Michael and Paula want to teach. They are devoted to that and very good at it. The late Per Volquartz, a brilliant photographer, teacher, (and almost holy person), went to Michael for training at one time. Neither Paula nor Michael would be bothered or insulted if one said, "I don't like this" or "This doesn't move me", especially if they might express what left them cold or distracted. That's how we get a back and forth discussion. That dynamic is valuable. Still, of course, those of us who like the work, can simply say that. One does not need an "academic" critique. Rather just a discussion on what impresses you, what you notice in the picture that seems remarkable or not so. What seems to make it work or not. That's how one learns.

So take a risk!

It will do you good and won't hurt! We can discuss with full freedom and when we have a question for the artists pose it to them. :)

Asher

[Antonio Correia]

I didn't mean I am not liking some images from the couple.
What I wrote is/was just a note. :)

And Asher I have already taken the risk haven't I ? :)
(I hope I am understanding what you mean Asher)
-
I know Per Volquartz's (http://www.pervolquartz.com/) work which I have seen somewhere in the past. Gorgeous, absolutely gorgeous work !

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

The visitors here are plenty. Few dare to speak. That's very common when the work is i the top tier. We don't want to make fools of ourselves by saying something that exposes our naivitée.




Asher - was taking about Seurat and Hoepker never commenting on this forum !

Seurat said he was going to join - but I couldn't get through to Hoepker.

cheers

[Michael A. Smith]

Antonio,

I most certainly would not have made that photograph had not the cloud been exactly (more or less) in the center of the sky in the picture.

If you have been reading all of our posts you will see that we are responsible for every square millimeter of the picture space. The cloud plays a most important function as I described when the picture was posted.

What happened was this. I was standing there deciding whether to bother taking out my camera or not. And then this cloud appeared, far off to the right at first, and started moving to the left. I realized that when it reached the center, and only then, I just might have something. So, very quickly, for I only had about one minute, I got out the camera, which was in the case, but quite near me, set it up, waited a very few seconds, and made the exposure. Only one. I never make more than one exposure of anything. If it did not turn out well--so what. I have enough good pictures for a lifetime. It is the visual experience that counts. The print is just a bonus.

Michael A. Smith

[Michael A. Smith]

Re: the photograph of the people on the banks of the Potomac. Actually, it is quite reminiscent of Sunday Afternoon on la Grande Jatte, by Seurat. Two bicycles, the bridge. Many elements are similar. I did not realize this when making the photograph, but only later.

Michael A. Smith

[Jerome Marot]

Re: the photograph of the people on the banks of the Potomac. Actually, it is quite reminiscent of Sunday Afternoon on la Grande Jatte, by Seurat. Two bicycles, the bridge.

There aren't any bicycles or bridges in "Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte" by Georges Seurat.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/A_Sunday_on_La_Grande_Jatte%2C_Georges_Seurat%2C_1 884.jpg/320px-A_Sunday_on_La_Grande_Jatte%2C_Georges_Seurat%2C_1 884.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

There aren't any bicycles or bridges in "Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte" by Georges Seurat.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/A_Sunday_on_La_Grande_Jatte%2C_Georges_Seurat%2C_1 884.jpg/320px-A_Sunday_on_La_Grande_Jatte%2C_Georges_Seurat%2C_1 884.jpg


Well, the sense of the place is similar. Must be another Seurot or one just fuses similar feelings and then creates a blend in one's mind. That's why testimony from childhood in trials can be so suspect.

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

Re: the photograph of the people on the banks of the Potomac. Actually, it is quite reminiscent of Sunday Afternoon on la Grande Jatte, by Seurat. Two bicycles, the bridge. Many elements are similar. I did not realize this when making the photograph, but only later.

Michael A. Smith

Its similar to many works as I pointed out - the Arcadian fantasy is a very common theme as you are well aware.

how does the last image (Thomas Hoepker work) change the reading of Potomac?

Does it change it?

In relation to the Iceland work is there any conceptual basis for selecting where you will make work - or why you make work?

is it a reaction to where you find yourselves in space/time?

[Michael A. Smith]

Jerome,

You are certainly right about there being no bicycles and no bridges in La Grande Jatte. Very weird, because after I made the photograph I looked at a reproduction of something by Seurat (I truly believe La Grande Jatte) and there were two bicycles and a bridge in the background. I must be losing my mind.

Michael A. Smith

[Mark Hampton]

Jerome,

You are certainly right about there being no bicycles and no bridges in La Grande Jatte. Very weird, because after I made the photograph I looked at a reproduction of something by Seurat (I truly believe La Grande Jatte) and there were two bicycles and a bridge in the background. I must be losing my mind.

Michael A. Smith

here is a mouse mat for you ! < (http://www.zazzle.co.uk/biking_on_la_grande_jatte_mousepad-144779123267955082)

[Asher Kelman]

Jerome,

You are certainly right about there being no bicycles and no bridges in La Grande Jatte. Very weird, because after I made the photograph I looked at a reproduction of something by Seurat (I truly believe La Grande Jatte) and there were two bicycles and a bridge in the background. I must be losing my mind.

Michael A. Smith

Michael,

Not "losing" but using!

The mind works by pattern recognition. It does not need the entire situation to be exact. The benefit for us is that the conditions of the moment match. This, (in primitive ways, of course), informs us of risk, resources and chances to mate! All those elements fit your picture. The bicycles ? Does that matter?

So in art, we don't just read what's there but also what's reminiscent of all the other similar pictures we've seen. Such factors can be part of the composition, even though absent. Just a thought!

I'm glad this happened. To me it's magic!

Asher

[Michael A. Smith]

In relation to the Iceland work is there any conceptual basis for selecting where you will make work - or why you make work?

is it a reaction to where you find yourselves in space/time?

No conceptual basis regarding where we photograph. Where we work is just a reaction to space/time.

Why we work is something else entirely. But to put it in a sentence: We make photographs because of the pleasure in the process.

Why we make the photographs we make (our "vision" for lack of a better term), is a function of our world view. That is no doubt true for every artist.

The function of art is to connect us to each other and to the world. We believe that happens when the structure of the picture relates to universal rhythms. There are an infinite number of ways to do this and in this context subject matter is irrelevant. Others respond to works of art because the rhythms of the pictures relate to their own rhythms. Since we all partake of these universal rhythms, to a greater or lesser degree, (the degree depends on one's emotional health), we relate to the work of art. Of course, other things enter into one's response, too—one's interest in the subject matter counts for a lot, but basically it is all about the rhythms.

Michael

[Asher Kelman]

The function of art is to connect us to each other and to the world. We believe that happens when the structure of the picture relates to universal rhythms. There are an infinite number of ways to do this and in this context subject matter is irrelevant. Others respond to works of art because the rhythms of the pictures relate to their own rhythms. Since we all partake of these universal rhythms, to a greater or lesser degree, (the degree depends on one's emotional health), we relate to the work of art. Of course, other things enter into one's response, too—one's interest in the subject matter counts for a lot, but basically it is all about the rhythms.

Michael

Michael,

On the face of it, your explanation fits well with a lot of teaching. However, I worry about this if it's true that we respond to universal rhythms for then it might follow that folk who understand them can control us. Maybe that's what religion does? Sort of wonderful as a concept but frightening as the flip side of enjoyment is also susceptibility to these same rhythms. Folk listen to hymns, are inspired by the architecture and could this just be connecting to the "Universal Rhythms" you postulate we can connect to when we make and appreciate art.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

New pictures to be posted tomorrow!

Asher

[Antonio Correia]

New pictures to be posted tomorrow! Asher

Excellent :)

[Michael A. Smith]

Cropping: Neither Paula nor I have ever cropped a negative. When all is said and done and the photograph is printed, no one cares if it was cropped or not—and “no one” includes ourselves. So why not crop a negative if it will yield a better photograph? There is no reason not to do so, except as follows.

What is the point of making photographs? For us, it is the pleasure in the process. And the most important part of that process is the thrill of seeing the image on the ground glass or the viewing screen— perfect in every detail. That is the high moment.

Whether a defect later appears in the negative—because the camera shook during the exposure, or the holder leaked and the negative was fogged, or, more rarely, because we were incorrect in our evaluation of the image on the ground glass, is unimportant. The point of the activity of making photographs is to have a deep and meaningful visual experience. We consider the photograph, the finished print, to be a bonus.

The painter Alfred Leslie once wrote, “There is a direct relationship between what we see and the quality of life.” And in the context of his article, “what we see” referred to how much we see. The implication is clearly that the more we see the richer and fuller our lives will be.

And we cannot think of a better tool for helping us to see more than using a camera. And using it in such a way that the experience of looking on the ground glass or viewing screen is an intense, deep, and meaningful experience. And that only happens when one pays close attention to everything in the frame and is not satisfied until every square millimeter becomes necessary to the picture.

In this context, whether the negative will yield a satisfactory print or not is irrelevant. With enough work over time the good photographs will come. Whether they do or not for any particular picture is unimportant, as long as in the act of exposing the negative one had that deep and full visual experience—one that encouraged one to see more.

Of course, if what you are photographing at that moment will possibly result in one of the greatest photographs ever made, or win a Pulitzer Prize for capturing an historic moment, the above does not apply. But the likelihood that any of us will be in that kind of situation, or make “one of the greatest photographs,” is extremely unlikely.

We once had a student who owned an 8x10 camera. We ran into him a year after the workshop and we asked him:

“How is it going Allan?”
He answered, “Great! I go out every single day with my camera.”
We were awestruck and replied, “Good for you Allan, that is incredible.”
He then responded, “And one of these days I am going to bring film.”

For Allan, the pleasure was truly in the process of looking on the ground glass—the deep visual experience. He did not need the bonus of a finished photograph.

So, why not crop your negatives? Because not doing so will encourage you to pay more attention when exposing your film. And as a consequence you will have a deeper and fuller visual experience, and if Alfred Leslie is correct, the quality of your life will improve.

Michael

[Michael A. Smith]

Here is a photograph from each of us, both made in Tuscany.


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Paula-Cortona.jpeg

Paula Chamlee: Untitled

Cortona

http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Michael- Near San Quirico d' Orcia.jpeg

Michael A. Smith: Untitled


Near San Quirico d' OrciaCortona

[Antonio Correia]

Forgive my ignorance but - as you do not crop - how do you make so different sized images ?
One almost square and the other clearly horizontal...

I am sure I am missing something. What is it ?

[Mark Hampton]

Forgive my ignorance but - as you do not crop - how do you make so different sized images ?
One almost square and the other clearly horizontal...

I am sure I am missing something. What is it ?

one is an 8/10 - the other is a 20/10 camera.

photography in any every sense is cropping data. which for me makes that a none issue.

i am more intreasted in the second image posted at this time - but like most of the work on this thread it will take me time to soak it in.

thanks for posting more work and the words

[Antonio Correia]

one is an 8/10 - the other is a 20/10 camera.

photography in any every sense is cropping data. which for me makes that a none issue.

i am more intreasted in the second image posted at this time - but like most of the work on this thread it will take me time to soak it in.

thanks for posting more work and the words

See ? How ignorant I am ?

Thank you Mark for the information :)

[Jerome Marot]

Forgive my ignorance but - as you do not crop - how do you make so different sized images ?
One almost square and the other clearly horizontal...

I am sure I am missing something. What is it ?

Just what I was thinking. Posting these two images after a message stating that cropping is not done... is that a trick question?

Which brings me to the second image, BTW: I don't like the crop (whether made on camera or in post). Too me, it looks too tight, especially on the bottom.

[Antonio Correia]

Just what I was thinking. Posting these two images after a message stating that cropping is not done... is that a trick question?

Which brings me to the second image, BTW: I don't like the crop (whether made on camera or in post). Too me, it looks too tight, especially on the bottom.

It was not a tricky question Jerome. :)

How the hell could you think so ? It's just my ignorance of these formats !

[Jerome Marot]

It was not a tricky question Jerome. :)

How the hell could you think so ? It's just my ignorance of these formats !

Sorry. I did not intend to say that you asked a trick question, but that, considering the context, the original post looked like one (although there is no actual "question" in it).

[Asher Kelman]

Michael and Paula,

Thanks for the new set of pictures. I know you are away on your photo expedition, so your contributions are even more appreciated! Be safe and happy hunting!

The little essay on cropping is a thing in itself! That needs to be address first as it is so important to both your work and something that I personally have tried to incorporate into my own work. It has two advantages. First, the thrill in taking the picture is increased, knowing that this is what will be printed. Next, the work needed to prepare the image is now much less.

I have tried to work like that, even with people changing expression and gestures to my design, but with my DSLR. This last weekend I had your work in mind in an ambitious shoot with a model and not have to have detailed photoshop processing. However, being on top of a 12 foot ladder, I'd have to hand my camera to my assistant and ask for another lens when I couldn't frame exactly as I'd print. Still, there where times when I said to myself, "Everything is so perfect, I'll take the shot tighter than I want, (because I'm using my 70-200 2.8L IS and I'm maxed out at 70mm) and add more background later in post."

I try my best! I'm not willing to walk away or lose the "peak moment" when I have the means to stitch and get the entire picture. Composition and content working together. The frame for printing, however, is always in my mind.

With landscape and buildings, nothing is moving, except perhaps the clouds or the sun and one can work within those constraints if one knows one's camera. With moving objects, it's harder to get the image on the ground glass and then insert a film holder, remove the dark slide, set the shutter, wait 5-10 seconds for vibrations to disappear and then take the shot. So, when I repeat the work with 8x10, I plan to set up so that it will staged exactly. Even those "peak moments" will be staged. Maybe, I too can achieve "framing nirvana". I can't get too excited, though, as I might fall off the bloody ladder!


Kind wishes, :)

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

one is an 8/10 - the other is a 20/10 camera.

photography in any every sense is cropping data. which for me makes that a none issue.



I'd say exclusion but yes there's a sense of that. However, with Michael and Paula's way of working, they seek to build within the area of ground glass their image. If they can get what they need in the ground glass, they release the shutter. Otherwise not. So there's never a case where the image seen on the ground glass, (upside down of course), is going to be different from the final print, except for use of B&W film and not color.


:)

Asher

[Jerome Marot]

There are two things I would add on cropping. I certainly agree that carefully building an image in the frame is a very satisfying process, but there are some cases where this is not possible:


-
many SLR viewfinders only show part of the picture, cropping will be necessary in order to find back what was actually seen in the viewfinder

when taking pictures of moving subjects, action, I found myself not quite able to reach the perfect crop all the time. Framing a bit wider and crop afterwards is a way to avoid cut fingers or feet for me. Of course this is not necessary for static subjects like landscape.

when taking panoramas (by assembling pictures), I may have an idea of how the final frame will be put, but the actual framing is actually done after the processing, so cropping is a necessity.

sometimes, I don't have the focal length at hand to frame the shot from the position where I want to take it. I may then take a wider picture and crop it afterwards.

a special case: I have been busy reproducing old documents lately. The distance is fixed, so that all documents are scanned with the same linear resolution, and each picture is cropped to the size of the document. It is a special case, but I cite it because technical photography like this makes 100% of the work of many pro photographers and that is often forgotten.

[Michael A. Smith]

There are two things I would add on cropping. I certainly agree that carefully building an image in the frame is a very satisfying process, but there are some cases where this is not possible:


-
many SLR viewfinders only show part of the picture, cropping will be necessary in order to find back what was actually seen in the viewfinder

when taking pictures of moving subjects, action, I found myself not quite able to reach the perfect crop all the time. Framing a bit wider and crop afterwards is a way to avoid cut fingers or feet for me. Of course this is not necessary for static subjects like landscape.

when taking panoramas (by assembling pictures), I may have an idea of how the final frame will be put, but the actual framing is actually done after the processing, so cropping is a necessity.

sometimes, I don't have the focal length at hand to frame the shot from the position where I want to take it. I may then take a wider picture and crop it afterwards.

a special case: I have been busy reproducing old documents lately. The distance is fixed, so that all documents are scanned with the same linear resolution, and each picture is cropped to the size of the document. It is a special case, but I cite it because technical photography like this makes 100% of the work of many pro photographers and that is often forgotten.



A few clarifications:

First: If the format of what you see does not fit the format of your negative, and when you are making the exposure you plan to crop part of the film area, as you might need to do if you do not have a lens of the focal length you need, we do not consider that to be cropping. What we consider to be cropping occurs when in the darkroom or in PhotoShop when you look at your exposure and say, "If I took this out, it would be better." That's cropping. As I have put it, "Cropping is an admission of failure to see creatively."

Second: If you have a camera where the viewfinder does not show 100% of the picture, either get a new camera or only use that part of the picture that you have seen in the viewfinder. For us, we would never use a camera where what we were seeing through the viewfinder or on ground glass was not what we were getting on the negative.

Third: If you are stitching a panoroma and some on the top or bottom needs to come off to even everything up, then we would not consider that cropping.

Fourth: Moving objects. This one is a little trickier, but there is a way to make sure you do not have to crop a picture even if things are moving. This method even works when using a stationary view camera. It assumes use of a tripod. Here is the secret. Let's say, for example, that you are working in an 8x10 proportion. Make a stiff card, about 8x10 or 8.5 x 11 inches, or even larger. In the center cut a hole about in 8x10 proportion that is about 1.5 inches on the longest side. Use a black card or use black tape to make this card black. This is so that when you are looking through the hole you cut, there will be no distractions. On the ground glass , determine the edges of your picture. Then, after you insert the film, but before you make the exposure, hold this card as close to the lens as possible and move it either toward the subject or closer to your eye until what you see takes in the exact same area that you saw on the ground glass. When the moving objects appear in the "right" place in the black-card-viewing frame, make the exposure. I have many examples of this. I made them to prove to myself that even when using a large view camera on a tripod, the limitation on subject matter is only due to the photographer and not to the equipment.

When using a smaller camera, without a tripod, doing this is simple; you just do the same thing, only directly with the camera. Do not click wildly, or use motor drive, but pay careful attention and only release the shutter when everything feels right. Of course, if you are a journalist on assignment and if you are photographing moving things, use that motor drive. But in this discussion, I assume one is making photographs as art, for oneself, and not as part of an assignment, so that would not apply.

Michael A. Smith

[Jerome Marot]

Fourth: Moving objects. This one is a little trickier, but there is a way to make sure you do not have to crop a picture even if things are moving. This method even works when using a stationary view camera. It assumes use of a tripod. Here is the secret. Let's say, for example, that you are working in an 8x10 proportion. Make a stiff card, about 8x10 or 8.5 x 11 inches, or even larger. In the center cut a hole about in 8x10 proportion that is about 1.5 inches on the longest side. Use a black card or use black tape to make this card black. This is so that when you are looking through the hole you cut, there will be no distractions. On the ground glass , determine the edges of your picture. Then, after you insert the film, but before you make the exposure, hold this card as close to the lens as possible and move it either toward the subject or closer to your eye until what you see takes in the exact same area that you saw on the ground glass. When the moving objects appear in the "right" place in the black-card-viewing frame, make the exposure. I have many examples of this. I made them to prove to myself that even when using a large view camera on a tripod, the limitation on subject matter is only due to the photographer and not to the equipment.

When using a smaller camera, without a tripod, doing this is simple; you just do the same thing, only directly with the camera. Do not click wildly, or use motor drive, but pay careful attention and only release the shutter when everything feels right. Of course, if you are a journalist on assignment and if you are photographing moving things, use that motor drive. But in this discussion, I assume one is making photographs as art, for oneself, and not as part of an assignment, so that would not apply.

As I wrote: "I found myself not quite able to reach the perfect crop all the time". I admitted from the onset that this is a failure of myself, for not being able to see and react fast enough when things go fast and I need to pay attention to two things at the same time: the position of the actors in the frame and whether nothing was cut by the frame. I almost never use the motor drive on my camera, by the way.

[Michael A. Smith]

I wasn't being critical of you, Jerome. I welcomed your response. It gave me the opportunity to expand on my original posting regarding cropping.

To others: We welcome comments and questions of all sorts. We are just trying to be helpful and your comments and questions give us the opportunity to say things we might not have thought of otherwise.

Michael A. Smith

[Asher Kelman]

Fourth: Moving objects. This one is a little trickier, but there is a way to make sure you do not have to crop a picture even if things are moving. This method even works when using a stationary view camera. It assumes use of a tripod. Here is the secret. Let's say, for example, that you are working in an 8x10 proportion. Make a stiff card, about 8x10 or 8.5 x 11 inches, or even larger. In the center cut a hole about in 8x10 proportion that is about 1.5 inches on the longest side. Use a black card or use black tape to make this card black. This is so that when you are looking through the hole you cut, there will be no distractions. On the ground glass , determine the edges of your picture. Then, after you insert the film, but before you make the exposure, hold this card as close to the lens as possible and move it either toward the subject or closer to your eye until what you see takes in the exact same area that you saw on the ground glass. When the moving objects appear in the "right" place in the black-card-viewing frame, make the exposure. I have many examples of this. I made them to prove to myself that even when using a large view camera on a tripod, the limitation on subject matter is only due to the photographer and not to the equipment.

Such a helpful suggestion! This is like using the wire frame of my Crown Graphic and a wonderful idea. Holding it next to the lens is unique. Maybe one should indeed have a wire frame or even a viewfinder positioned in advance to frame the same outer limits? This has now opened up more possibilities for me.

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

Cropping: Neither Paula nor I have ever cropped a negative. When all is said and done and the photograph is printed, no one cares if it was cropped or not—and “no one” includes ourselves. So why not crop a negative if it will yield a better photograph? There is no reason not to do so, except as follows.

What is the point of making photographs? For us, it is the pleasure in the process. And the most important part of that process is the thrill of seeing the image on the ground glass or the viewing screen— perfect in every detail. That is the high moment.

Whether a defect later appears in the negative—because the camera shook during the exposure, or the holder leaked and the negative was fogged, or, more rarely, because we were incorrect in our evaluation of the image on the ground glass, is unimportant. The point of the activity of making photographs is to have a deep and meaningful visual experience. We consider the photograph, the finished print, to be a bonus.

The painter Alfred Leslie once wrote, “There is a direct relationship between what we see and the quality of life.” And in the context of his article, “what we see” referred to how much we see. The implication is clearly that the more we see the richer and fuller our lives will be.

And we cannot think of a better tool for helping us to see more than using a camera. And using it in such a way that the experience of looking on the ground glass or viewing screen is an intense, deep, and meaningful experience. And that only happens when one pays close attention to everything in the frame and is not satisfied until every square millimeter becomes necessary to the picture.

In this context, whether the negative will yield a satisfactory print or not is irrelevant. With enough work over time the good photographs will come. Whether they do or not for any particular picture is unimportant, as long as in the act of exposing the negative one had that deep and full visual experience—one that encouraged one to see more.

Of course, if what you are photographing at that moment will possibly result in one of the greatest photographs ever made, or win a Pulitzer Prize for capturing an historic moment, the above does not apply. But the likelihood that any of us will be in that kind of situation, or make “one of the greatest photographs,” is extremely unlikely.

We once had a student who owned an 8x10 camera. We ran into him a year after the workshop and we asked him:

“How is it going Allan?”
He answered, “Great! I go out every single day with my camera.”
We were awestruck and replied, “Good for you Allan, that is incredible.”
He then responded, “And one of these days I am going to bring film.”

For Allan, the pleasure was truly in the process of looking on the ground glass—the deep visual experience. He did not need the bonus of a finished photograph.

So, why not crop your negatives? Because not doing so will encourage you to pay more attention when exposing your film. And as a consequence you will have a deeper and fuller visual experience, and if Alfred Leslie is correct, the quality of your life will improve.

Michael

do you need a camera to have deep visual experiences?

and what is a deep visual experience ?

[Asher Kelman]

do you need a camera to have deep visual experiences?

and what is a deep visual experience ?


Mark,

Seems obvious that a camera would not be necessary. Having admitted that, it's obvious that the camera, especially one with an inverted image on a glass screen snapping to pristine focus, is able to exclude the rest of the real world in a special way. So, for people experienced in using cameras, they can choose a part of what is visible and make it more important and immediate than it would be from just our casual view. It's this concentration of effort and intimacy which, I believe Michael is referring to. Here a deep visual experience is indeed possible.

So what is that experience? I'd guess that it's one in which the scene is magnetic, drawing one in as if one has a special relationship with all the parts and the whole and much more represented by what's there, what was there, what could be there or will be there at some time in the future. If we gave that much deeply self-absorbed interest to what we observed outside of the camera screen, we'd be to distracted in rich visual experience to function! So this level of attention must be suppressed in our regular lives.

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

Seems obvious that a camera would not be necessary. Having admitted that, it's obvious that the camera, especially one with an inverted image on a glass screen snapping to pristine focus, is able to exclude the rest of the real world in a special way. So, for people experienced in using cameras, they can choose a part of what is visible and make it more important and immediate than it would be from just our casual view. It's this concentration of effort and intimacy which, I believe Michael is referring to. Here a deep visual experience is indeed possible.

So what is that experience? I'd guess that it's one in which the scene is magnetic, drawing one in as if one has a special relationship with all the parts and the whole and much more represented by what's there, what was there, what could be there or will be there at some time in the future. If we gave that much deeply self-absorbed interest to what we observed outside of the camera screen, we'd be to distracted in rich visual experience to function! So this level of attention must be suppressed in our regular lives.

Asher

i can sit for hours without a camera just watching things unfold and i dont get distracted - thinking about camera things would be a distraction - different zens for different folks i guess ...

would you consider using white noise / or noise cancellation headphones to sharpen your visaul experiences up - it should work.


photo zen - capturing with one hand.

[Asher Kelman]

i can sit for hours without a camera just watching things unfold and i dont get distracted - thinking about camera things would be a distraction - different zens for different folks i guess ...

would you consider using white noise / or noise cancellation headphones to sharpen your visaul experiences up - it should work.


photo zen - capturing with one hand.


Actually, Mark,

We probably need some noise to stay sane! If one is suspending in a chamber in water at body temperature exactly and shielded from all vibrations and sound, one would be very stressed. The problem with alert artists is that we are constantly scanning our surroundings for subjects. It becomes even painful to walk by a tree without stopping or to not to speak to a fascinating person one would like to photograph. Je souffre! Makes me think of the French singer, Marlene Farmer, "Je T'aime Mélancolie" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT5deeGfC8o). She observes her life as if from the outside commenting on her own sadness.

So back to the idea of a special deep visual experience, I believe it, since when I have my camera this is my pleasure and my suffering. I get distracted by trees, flowers, architecture and other beauty, even just a fallen leaf, and get seduced! So for me, Michael is right. A camera, allows this intense directed focus, even for folk who normally can pass by beauty and not suffer!

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Michael- Near San Quirico d' Orcia.jpeg

Michael A. Smith: Untitled


Near San Quirico d' OrciaCortona


Michael,

I find this so enjoyable. It's as if someone created something balanced and painstakingly drew it in charcoal and chalk.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Paula-Cortona.jpeg

Paula Chamlee: Untitled

Cortona


Paula,

This is much more intimate! The open outer door seems to make it that personal! It could be that so much of what others might have included, (the rest of each plant or structure that are cut off, for example) would have ruined the pleasure I get from this image as it is now. This is so unexpected a realization as what I thought I was so sure about, (not cutting stuff off like this), has now been made uncertain and far less dogmatic.

This picture is also so different from Michael's "charcoal" textured landscape, (in the previous post), which is so obviously balanced, but impersonal! It's not soul-less, but lacks any directed sense of human interaction. Although with that pastoral landscape by Michael, we recognize the dwellings or marks of humans, but not anyone involvement with them. By contrast, your picture, (which I'd never have thought to frame that way), seems far more invested in human relationships. It's as if the roles of both of you seen in the post #51 has been reversed, LOL!

This is an example of where beauty is not needed for a photograph with considerable human weight! I would never have though such a design would work so well, but there you are, I'm just learning too!

Thanks for sharing!

Asher

[Michael A. Smith]

Mark,

Asher explained this well, but here is my explanation. One does not need a camera to have a deep visual experience, but when working with a large view camera under a darkcloth, where, by narrowly focusing one's attention, everything else in the visual world is excluded, the visual experience is intensified. And that degree of intensity happens all the time when under the darkcloth, whereas those intense moments are less frequent when the surrounding world impinges on one's peripheral vision. "Intense" may be a better word than "deep" in my writing, but both words apply. There is certainly nothing superficial about the experience.

Working with a digital camera and making many exposures and dealing with them later on the computer is, in comparison, while making the exposure, a relatively superficial experience, for in that situation one need not necessarily be fully engaged. And as I believe I wrote earlier, it is the pleasure in the process is what it is all about for us. And the more intense the experience, the more pleasure in the process, for ourselves in any case. We understand that may not be true for everyone.

Michael A. Smith

[Jim Shanesy]

Michael:

If the finished prints are just the icing on the cake, so to speak, why do you go to such great lengths to make truly fine ones?

Jim

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

Asher explained this well, but here is my explanation. One does not need a camera to have a deep visual experience, but when working with a large view camera under a darkcloth, where, by narrowly focusing one's attention, everything else in the visual world is excluded, the visual experience is intensified. And that degree of intensity happens all the time when under the darkcloth, whereas those intense moments are less frequent when the surrounding world impinges on one's peripheral vision. "Intense" may be a better word than "deep" in my writing, but both words apply. There is certainly nothing superficial about the experience.

Working with a digital camera and making many exposures and dealing with them later on the computer is, in comparison, while making the exposure, a relatively superficial experience, for in that situation one need not necessarily be fully engaged. And as I believe I wrote earlier, it is the pleasure in the process is what it is all about for us. And the more intense the experience, the more pleasure in the process, for ourselves in any case. We understand that may not be true for everyone.

Michael A. Smith

Michael,

thanks for coming back on this... it cleared up some issues for me in your approach to makeing work.

cheers

[Asher Kelman]

Michael:

If the finished prints are just the icing on the cake, so to speak, why do you go to such great lengths to make truly fine ones?

Jim

Jim,

Hello!!!!! Collectors are in line for the prints as soon as they are available. That is the end result of work of an artist if one is so fortunate. :)

Asher

[Jim Shanesy]

Jim,

Hello!!!!! Collectors are in line for the prints as soon as they are available. That is the end result of work of an artist if one is so fortunate. :)

Asher

So then the finished print is not just a bonus, is it? In my opinion, it's an integral part of the artistic process. The high point may occur while you're looking at the ground glass, but you haven't really closed the loop until the final product is finished.

[Asher Kelman]

So then the finished print is not just a bonus, is it? In my opinion, it's an integral part of the artistic process. The high point may occur while you're looking at the ground glass, but you haven't really closed the loop until the final product is finished.

Jim,

I'm just now doing a shoot I've planned for months using a beautiful model relating to objects. I can tell you that the high point is my amazement looking through the viewfinder and seeing what i'm about to capture. Of course I'll be superbly happy when I make the prints and delighted to make sales. However, nothing to me is as thrilling as having coaxed objects in good light to become a work that has magic. That's the highpoint of creation. At that instant I know thew print will be follow and that's just labor.

With pictures that requires a lot of "post"work, the thrill may be delayed to the print, but to me, nothing matches seeing it all as one clicks the shutter!

Asher

[Michael A. Smith]

Jim,

The finished print is truly a bonus. But why go to the extremes we do to make such fine ones? The answer: anything we do, we do fully. How can one not do anything as well as one is capable of doing it? There is also great pleasure in the process of making the prints. If there were not, I would have someone else print them, or perhaps not bother at all. And making prints and finishing them, is, as you said, an integral part of the process.

If someone wants to buy a print, that is a double bonus, but Paula and I never make any photograph because we think it will sell.

One incident: In March of 1979 I was leaving the Chiracahua National Monument in Arizona, and as I exited, there it was--the perfect foreground, mid-ground, and mountains in the distance. The clouds were in exactly the right place. There was great light and no wind. It was pretty a scene as I have ever stumbled across. I said to myself that if I made an exposure of this scene I would surely be able to sell many prints of it. But that would have been the only reason I would have made the exposure.

I did not make it. The memory of that experience is safely in my brain, and that is good enough for me. I did not make the exposure because it was too easy. Because I saw the entire picture ahead of time, there was nothing to learn from it. There was no challenge. No growth would have taken place by making that exposure. And I am fond of quoting the poet e.e.cummings who said in one of his lectures at Harvard, "An artist, whose every agony is to grow."

Michael A. Smith

[Jim Shanesy]

With pictures that requires a lot of "post"work, the thrill may be delayed to the print, but to me, nothing matches seeing it all as one clicks the shutter!

Asher

I never see it when I click the shutter. That's part of "post" work. I see it when I compose (or maybe I should say "find") the image on the groundglass.

I once got so excited when making a negative that when I began taking the camera down I dropped my lens onto a marble floor and ruined the diaphragm. That picture cost me $350.00 for a new shutter. Part of the excitement, I think, was some anticipation of what a fine print I could make of it. I just can't regard the print as a bonus. To me it's core to the experience of seeing and not just to the process.

Ansel Adams said: "There can be craft without art, but there can be no art without craft." I've seen many prints of photographs by Henri Cartier-Bresson and most of them are awful prints. Sublime compositions, poor to no craftsmanship. Since he didn't do his own printing and therefore never mastered his craft, to me he was not an artist. He was a master photographic illustrator.

[Asher Kelman]

I never see it when I click the shutter. That's part of "post" work. I see it when I compose (or maybe I should say "find") the image on the groundglass.

I once got so excited when making a negative that when I began taking the camera down I dropped my lens onto a marble floor and ruined the diaphragm. That picture cost me $350.00 for a new shutter. Part of the excitement, I think, was some anticipation of what a fine print I could make of it. I just can't regard the print as a bonus. To me it's core to the experience of seeing and not just to the process.

Yes, Jim,

It's stunning to see a camera fly to the ground. It seems to happen as if in slow motion and there's nothing one can do! At least you got the picture! My fear is losing orientation, myself and dropping from a height I shouldn't be in the first place!

Ansel Adams said: "There can be craft without art, but there can be no art without craft." I've seen many prints of photographs by Henri Cartier-Bresson and most of them are awful prints. Sublime compositions, poor to no craftsmanship. Since he didn't do his own printing and therefore never mastered his craft, to me he was not an artist. He was a master photographic illustrator.

This is an important topic itself so it starts a new thread here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16118).

[Maris Rusis]

I'm with Jim Shanesy and Ansel Adams. Truly, there is no art without craft.

Craft, as I see it, is a general term referring to the artist's control of the process of getting an idea out of their own mind and into the mind of their audience. Photographers do this by making pictures of such and such a form so as to influence the perceptions of a receptive viewer in the desired direction. If the influence goes to plan the art is successful. But craft takes many forms and sometimes it is not as it is first perceived.

Henri Cartier-Bresson is often credited with spectacularly prescient camera-work but that wasn't really his shtick. I believe he was an arch organiser of resources and a self publicist without limit, conscience, or shame. But it takes real obsession to relentlessly chase grotesque or sensational subject matter. It is no mean thing to expose a thousand negatives a day and have people rush you the contacts sheets on demand and then often throw them all away. Successfully badgering skilled darkroom workers to turn assorted negatives into elegant masperpieces requires the personal ferocity Cartier-Bresson was never afraid of exploiting. I see H.C-B as a psychopath with a camera but a genius all the same.

The legend of Michelangelo as a singular creative genius is fiction largely perpetrated by Giorgio Vasari, the ultimate art groupie. Michelangelo was the pinnacle of a busy arts industry and had plenty of willing assistants to rough-out the blocks of marble prior to his finishing touches. And he ended up famous, irascible, influential, and immensely rich. Again the craft here is an amalgam of genuine personal skill, self publicity, and the will to command artistic production.

As modern exemplars of "grand craft" I could nominate Robert Mapplethorpe, Annie Leibovitz, Jeff Koons, and Tracey Moffatt. If you hire the best sets, lights, models, designers, studio help, laboratory staff, promoters, and publicists you too can become a famous photographer and fine questions about who actually did what become irrelevant. Who gets the credit, that's what's relevant.

Ever the contrarian I decided to embrace a different form of craft when I committed to photography. My mantra is: Each of my photograph is made out of light-sensitive materials, one at a time, start to finish, and in full, by my own hand. Mantras have consequences and mine may well be anonymity. But it is worth it. I want the same sort of personal creative thrills that Jim Shanesy writes about, that Ansel Adams recounted in numerous articles, that moved Edward Weston to supreme achievement.

Working in solitude, doing everything, can be lonely but when things go well it is a very sweet place indeed.

[Asher Kelman]

Please discuss further the subject of craft in art here (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16118).

[Jim Shanesy]

Henri Cartier-Bresson is often credited with spectacularly prescient camera-work but that wasn't really his shtick. I believe he was an arch organiser of resources and a self publicist without limit, conscience, or shame. But it takes real obsession to relentlessly chase grotesque or sensational subject matter. It is no mean thing to expose a thousand negatives a day and have people rush you the contacts sheets on demand and then often throw them all away. Successfully badgering skilled darkroom workers to turn assorted negatives into elegant masperpieces requires the personal ferocity Cartier-Bresson was never afraid of exploiting. I see H.C-B as a psychopath with a camera but a genius all the same.


While HCB may have been what I consider a photojournalist, his protege (or perhaps I should say "photographic emulator") Raghubir Singh (http://www.raghubirsingh.com/portfolio_en.htm) was a masterful artist. I don't know how he produced them but his prints were gorgeous. He gets my vote for the best street photographer ever. He used a 35mm camera and Kodachrome 25 film, employing the simplest of methods.

[Jerome Marot]

I would appreciate if this thread was revived with some new pictures to discuss. Thank you in advance.

[Michael A. Smith]

Jerome and others:

We would like to continue if there is interest, but we have covered a lot of ground--the most important things. What we suggest is that you ask questions and let us know what you are interested in and how we can help and we will respond.

Michael and Paula

[Asher Kelman]

Michael and Paula,

Welcome back from your journeys! We're looking forward to more images as well as our questions!

From me, to what extent are your pictures altered in character by your choices of lenses for your unique cameras? "What is your stable of lenses and how have they influenced your work?", if I have phrased the question the best way!

Asher

[Jerome Marot]

Thank you for coming back. I would like to know a bit more about your personal history, what brought you to photography, what training you have (formal or else) and how it was useful, how you became recognized as art photographers, what you did as photographers when you started. Thank you in advance.

[Michael A. Smith]

Thank you for coming back. I would like to know a bit more about your personal history, what brought you to photography, what training you have (formal or else) and how it was useful, how you became recognized as art photographers, what you did as photographers when you started. Thank you in advance.

That, Jerome is a question that requires a very long answer, one that is written about extensively in the book that accompanied my twenty-five year retrospective exhibition at the George Eastman House in 1992. The book, Michael A Smith: A Visual Journey is available from our publishing company, Lodima Press. There are not many copies remaining. The book sells for $125, but I will offer it to you and to anyone else reading this forum for the old price of $95, plus $10 shipping (in the USA, more overseas or Canada). There are 176 well-reproduced reproductions in the book and a wonderful essay about my career in photography up to that point.

Briefly: I am totally self-taught as a photographer (as is Paula). I knew making photographs as an artist would be my life's work before I even knew the term f-stop existed. I had no art background, having failed an art course in high school, which i had to repeat. So little did I know, that in 1966 I was shocked to learn that a camera cost as much as $150 (for a very basic 35mm Pentax--an H1A).

I was, and still am, interested in photographs--pictures--not the technical stuff. Although I have written a few technical articles, I really have no interest in that aspect of things except as the knowledge allows me to make better prints. I did some tests once, made 40 test negatives, made curves. It was meaningless and I threw it all away. If one understands exposure and development relationships fully, and the operative word here is fully, one need never do any testing. I once taught a course at a major art school/university called Theory and Technique. For a semester I did not make one exposure, nor did I go into the darkroom. I studied this stuff. Being self-taught, when I was hired I barely knew the difference in a 35mm camera between a leaf shutter and a diaphragm. Heck, they looked the same to me. But I learned that and a lot more. Fortunately, I have forgotten 99% of it as it is not relevant to making pictures with a camera.

That last paragraph is not really an answer to your question, but I could not resist.

Michael A. Smith

[Michael A. Smith]

Michael and Paula,

Welcome back from your journeys! We're looking forward to more images as well as our questions!

From me, to what extent are your pictures altered in character by your choices of lenses for your unique cameras? "What is your stable of lenses and how have they influenced your work?", if I have phrased the question the best way!

Asher

That is an interesting technical question, Asher.

Originally, for the 8x10 all I had was a "normal" 12" lens [~ 300mm] --equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. Many, though certainly not all of my photographs, were of relatively close-up subjects. Over the years I acquired a few other lenses--a wider one and a longer one--but did not use them a great deal.

Then, after photographing for nine years, I took a seven-and-a half-month photography trip to the west, where as I put it, "the tradition I am a part of had flowered." The deep spaces there, for me, demanded that I use longer lenses. This is because I have always been interested in abstraction. It was relatively easy for me to make close-up photographs have a sense of abstraction about them, but to take in a deep space, a deep recognizable, inhabitable space, and still have the photographs have an underlying abstract structure abstract, that was, and remains, an interesting challenge. Long lenses compress the space, making it more two-dimensional, more abstract.


http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Bryce Canyon.jpeg

Michael A. Smith: Bryce Canyon



http://openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/M_P/Shore Acres.jpeg

Michael A. Smith: Shore Acres


And subsequent to that first trip I acquired a number of long lenses.

Then I began using the 8x20, a camera that necessitated the use of long lenses to cover the 20-inch length of the negative. But what is interesting, with the 8x20 even the widest lens I have that covers the negative is a long lens top to bottom for the 8-inch dimension , which is the same for the 8x20 as for the 8x10.

Over the years I have acquired a whole array of lenses: the ones I have that cover the 8x20 camera--the camera I use almost entirely when I am working in black and white (I use the 8x10 these days mostly for color work), are 14", 16.5", 19", 24", 30", 35", and 42". The lens I choose to use is a function of the space before me.

I hope that answers your question.

Michael A. Smith